Cowbee

What does China have to do with Trump?

@[email protected] gave an excellent answer, but I figured I'd take my shot at simplifying further.

Essentially, the bourgeois state is formed over time to support bourgeois society. A revolution that tries to wield it in its own favor has to contend with the fact that over time, the state as a superstructure is fully compatible with its respective base, capitalism. In order to change the base and superstructure, an entirely new state needs to take its place, not just in name but in structure, otherwise the old superstructure left hanging will wrest back control, like what happened at the Paris Commune.

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.

Not every society is authoritarian. Tribal, classless societies were not so, they had no state. A fully collectivized, ie communist system will have no class, and thus no need for one class to oppress others, ie is not authoritarian. Every existing society in between those is authoritarian, from the feudal lords to the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, each ruling class will wield the state and thus authority to resolve class contradictions. I already explained the differences in degrees of oppression, and how they depend more on circumstances than an implicit desire for control. It's better for the proletariat to be in charge than the bourgeoisie.

Socialism is pre-communism. Socialism is a mode of production where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and controlled, ie the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. Communism is when all production globally has been collectivized, and thus is classless, and therefore stateless (though not without management, administration, or planning). Further, even collectivized systems allow for rewards for individual contributions, no socialist country in history has had equal pay, Marx railed against "equalitarians." The process of sublimating all property is a gradual one, private property in socialism is something expected to vanish over time as firms grow and are folded into the collectivized system.

Finally, "human nature" has nothing to do with our conversation. I don't see why you think communism can only work at a small scale, when the opposite is the case, communism can only be realized globally. I think you're mixing up anarchist economics with Marxist economics.

This is... shockingly misinformed. To a frankly massive degree.

1. Tribal societies, called "primitive communism," were not at all what Marx was describing post-socialist communism to be. Tribal production was largely based on hunting and gathering, and tiny, communal ownership, rather than collectivized production built on a globally interconnected system.

2. Historical materialism does not pitch history as "linear." It's an advancement on idealist notions of dialectics as humanity advancing, unknown to themselves, a grand "Spirit." Dialectical materialism flipped dialectics on its head, it's matter that drives thought, not a metaphysical ideal that drives movement.

3. Hegel and German idealism have faded because they are idealist, and thus wrong. See point 2. You're confusing Marxism as idealist, and erasing materialism by referring to it as "scientific" dialectics.

4. Marxism-Leninism betrays neither Marx nor Lenin. You just kind of left this hanging without explaining why, so I'd like clarification. Stalin's contributions are largely limited to the political economy of the Soviet Union, such as the policy of Socialism in One Country. Not sure what you mean when you say Stalin lost in the power struggle with Stalin, I assume that's a typo.

5. Marxist-Leninists have no love for the Russian Federation. MLs recognize that due to the RF's lack of the immense financial capital and potential subjects to imperialize that the west already has, despite being a nationalist capitalist nation it's forced to oppose western imperialism, and engage in trade with actual socialist countries like the PRC. Russia has every reason to want to imperialize the global south, but simply lacks the means to do so.

Marx's theories have not failed. Crucially, what I'm picking up on is a surface-level understanding of Marxism coupled with false-conclusions resulting from a lack of depth in understanding. To be frank, I'm a Marxist-Leninist because Marxism-Leninism is successful as a tool to bring about socialism, and a useful tool in identifying the main contradictions in existing society. If you have more specific critiques, we can get into them, but as it stands there's nothing for me to really counter, and I don't want to just stand on a soapbox and tell you to "read more theory," that's almost always unproductive.

Regardless of how you feel about the GOP, the extent it is allowed to change is the extent to which the ruling class can continue to have their interests served. The DNC is the same in this respect, neither can go against the system dominated by private ownership, but they can slide around as long as they adhere to that.

As for successful revolutions, many. Algeria, Haiti, Cuba, China, Russia, Vietnam, etc. All have delivered much better results for their people post-revolution as compared to pre-revolution. Revolution happens because it's necessary.

Deeply unserious behavior.

Even if that were true, it'd be better than spyware tracing everything to the US Empire. What's China going to do to me when I live in the US?

Communism isn't predicated on selflessness, nor is capitalism predicated on selfishness. Socialism/communism are predicated on public ownership and direction of production, while capitalism is predicated on private. The superstuctural elements like ideology are not the driving factors, the underlying base is. The superstructure comes from the base, and reinforces it, but does not decide whether it works or not.

Secondly, all states are authoritarian, they are all extensions of the ruling class. The degree that authority is exerted is a direct reaction to circumstance. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian and both ruled by the bourgeoisie, the reason Nazi Germany is seen as more authoritarian is because the economy was in dire straits and the capitalist class needed to violently crush dissent and assert itself in order to protect the existing property relations. Modern Germany is not opposed to the same violent repression, it just lacks the current necessity to do so, outside of crushing pro-Palestinian protestors.

Finally, socialism works. Socialist economies run by communist parties have had remarkable success in achieving high rates of economic growth and uplifting the working class. The largest and most significant economy in the world today is the PRC, which is socialist. People who say "communism/socialism don't work" are largely pointing to the dissolution of the USSR, but the Soviet Union worked remarkably well until it liberalized and undermined its own system based on centralized planning. The reintroduction of capitalism to Eastern Europe was devastating, killing 7 million people and resulting in lowered life expectancy, skyrocketing drug abuse, human trafficking, poverty, wealth disparity, and more.

I think you would do well to investigate the topic further, as you already admitted you haven't really done so yet, so this is a great opportunity.

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.

As @[email protected] said, Marxist economics are sound and they work. The problem is that the conclusions of Marxist economics point to it being unquestionably correct to move beyond capitalism and into socialism, so the capitalist status-quo spends more time trying to make up any excuses they can to keep the gravy train going for that little bit longer. Liberal economists can't form a consensus because it's all based on rejection of working economic theory.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer. For me, I stay positive by regularly weight training, eating home-cooked meals, meditating when I feel overwhelmed, and reading Marxist-Leninist theory. The rest of my life, my hobbies, relationships, job, etc. all are ways I find purpose, meaning, subsistence, pleasure, etc, but the bedrock described previously helps me better carry out the latter.