[-] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago

Tragic đŸ« 

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I'm 92% sure this is a bit

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Like a pet, lol

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

In normal discussions, simple mistakes like confusing the Wikipedia page for "Elections in the Soviet Union" with the page for "Soviet Democracy" merits some grace, especially because I have been exceedingly patient with you. Again, I'm only being patient with you because I understand that you feel caught out and alone, that's why you're jumping for screengrabs for the drama communities you mod while talking to 3-5 people at the same time. It isn't really a healthy thing to do.

As for the "lack of democracy," no, it's definitely been affirmed as a somewhat flawed, but working democratic system. The Soviet Union was the world's first socialist state, it broke new ground and stumbled along the way, but that doesn't make it "fascist" or those who supported it so. Same with trying to pile on a bunch of new topics to discuss, hoping one of them lands. It's desparate.

I don't see how I reject everything Marx stood for. You've admitted to not being a Marxist yourself, what makes you an authority on Marxism? My opinions are largely in line with the overwhelming majority of Marxists, I'm a Marxist-Leninist that holds a fairly standard Marxist-Leninist view.

You keep misusing the word "fascist" and genocide. You have no sources but Wikipedia links, and you've again been at this for hours. For your sake I'm disengaging here, this just isn't worth it for anyone, and I recommend you do so as well. You obviously don't care about anything I have to say, and I don't really take your insults seriously as I know they hold no water, so that's it.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

I legitimately do feel a bit bad for you, you're getting called out on a thread here and it looks like everyone is dogpiling on you, but being this abrasive and bad-faith is only making it worse. I really don't think my point of Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan being mentioned on an adjacent page as a source is a bad thing on my part, and you're right, the Cold War has resulted in tons of blurry sources that can make it difficult to tell what's real and what isn't.

Helpfully, the Soviet archives were opened, and contemporary historians have been able to make great progress on clarifying a lot of debated topics, and Pat Sloan's account has survived that and been affirmed.

I don't really think you're mean, per se, just crashing out and lashing out. I don't take any of your insults seriously, just like I wouldn't a Flat Earther. You haven't presented any new information, and keep resorting to calling a Marxist a "fascist." It's historically and categorically false to lump Marxism in with fascism, it obscures the fundamental ties to capitalism fascism has, and the history of anticommunism in every existing fascist movement.

Again, I recommend taking a break.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Reference 35 on the Wikipedia page for Soviet Democracy

Other historians like Robert W. Thurston argue, while the top of the soviet system became largely bureaucratic, the local levels of society remained largely participatory.[34] He writes "while sane, calm, and sober, no worker would have dared to say that socialism was a poor system or that Stalin was an idiot" but then goes on to argue that these bounds still allowed for citizens to have meaningful participation on their immediate situation and this local participation meant "ultimately relatively little was controlled by the government or party decree".[34]

This is supported by some historical accounts. For example, in Pat Sloan's historical account of participating in a Soviet election, he wrote:[35]

I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship are no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organisation was called. by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?

It isn't the exact same Wikipedia page, to be charitable to you, but again I don't see why you immediately jump to insults rather than asking for clarification. We both know I'm a communist, we both know I've read these pages, we both know I've read beyond them. Just drop the insults, step away for a moment, and breathe. You're fine.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I recommend you read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, an American who visited the USSR in the 30s, participated in its elections, and documented the electoral process. There's also this article that gives a brief overview of how they functioned. It even has this neat diagram:

I'm not sure what purpose you fulfill in just linking me a Wikipedia page we both know I've already read. The Wikipedia article even mentions Pat Sloan's work as a source, so it should be good reading for you.

Finally, again, fascism is a bourgeois system fundamentally reliant on private property rights over the large firms and key industries. It's capitalism using its full toolset in times of crisis to stick together. Communists are not fascists, we support collectivization of production and economic planning to better fulfil people's needs.

I again recommend stepping away from the keyboard, you're just crashing out at this point and willy-nilly calling leftists "fascists."

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Lmao, you and I both know that isn't how democracy works in the PRC and it isn't how it worked in the Soviet Union. You should also be aware of the historical tie fascism has with anticommunism. You're just doing word salad now, please just do yourself a favor and take a break for a few days or something. You've been all over this thread.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Nah, the PRC is democratic, and so was the USSR. Both are examples of socialism in the real world. I really don't know what you're trying to do here, I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit because you seem to have been here for hours now.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

Don't really follow, are you just saying that because I'm opinionated and like to talk about Marxism, I'm the same kind of shit-stirrer that constantly posts memes trying to provoke a response, and mods a bunch of drama communities specifically about snooping on people for screengrabs? I can't say I agree.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago

I pretty plainly admit to focusing on correcting misinterpretations of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, I spend very little time power posting, and I don't own and moderate drama communities. I also don't downvote troll people, or stalk them and post about them on drama comms.

I'm certainly opinionated, and have my own political views I don't shy away from, but I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamentally different situation.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago

Unsurprising, that user is a power-poster and power-mod that constantly tries to shit-stir. Figured it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

2
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!

Some significant works:

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The Civil War in France

Wage Labor & Capital

Wages, Price, and Profit

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)

The Poverty of Philosophy

And, of course, Capital Vol I-III

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

1
Happy birthday, Lenin! (lemmynsfw.com)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

On April 22nd, 1870, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov "Lenin," hero of the Russian Revolution, and architect of the world's first Socialist state, was born. His contributions to the Marxist canon and to the revolutionary theory and practice of the proletariat throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of imperialism, the right of nations to self-determination, and revolutionary strategy have played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He also loved cats!

Some significant works:

What is to be Done?

Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism

The State and Revolution

"Left-Wing" Communism

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

The Tax in Kind

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

1
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Among many who have not engaged with Marxist theory, there can be confusion regarding the determination of systems as Socialist, Capitalist, and so forth. Are markets Capitalism? Is public ownership Socialism? Is a worker cooperative in a Capitalist country a fragment of Socialism? These questions are answered by studying Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and I will attempt to help clarify those questions here.

The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.

Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized. Neither actually allows us to usefully analyze the trajectory of a country and who actually has the power within it.

For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.

For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism. To do so is to add confusion, and the origin of such a desire is from idealists who believe Socialism to be a grand, almost mystical achievement of perfection. The truth is more mundane, and yet because it's more mundane, it's real, and achievable, as it already has been in many countries.

What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.

As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.

Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.

Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation.

Marxism isn't useful because Marx was prophetic, but because he synthesized the ideas built up by his predecessors and armed the working class with valuable tools for understanding their enemy and the methods with which to overcome said enemy.

1
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

For good fun, here are a few of Lenin's most important contributions to Marxist theory, I highly recommend all of them (but Imperialism especially).

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (must read for any Leftist wanting to understand modern Capitalism, Anarchists included!)

The State and Revolution

"Left-Wing" Communism

1
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Dr. Michael Parenti 1986 Lecture "Yellow Parenti"

Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!

1
Read Feinberg. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Interested in Marxism-Leninism? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

1
Parenti Hands (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Dr. Michael Parenti 1986 Lecture "Yellow Parenti"

Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!

1
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1
PragerUrine (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

"More than 80% of all combat during the Second World War took place on the Eastern Front."

For a fantastic look into the history of fascism and Communism as bitter enemies, Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti.

view more: next â€ș

Cowbee

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago