Cowbee

Capital, Volume 1 was first published in 1867, when capitalism was dominant in western Europe and it was both dramatically improving production while pushing down the quality of life of the proletariat. Capital is a critique of "Political Economy," the common bourgeois justification for capitalism. Marx's chief observation about capitalism that enables socialism is capitalism's centralizing tendencies, which increases the ratio of proletarian to bourgeois, while also training the proletariat on how to run and administer a complex and centralized economy.

The old, tribal formations were not socialist, they had no socialized production. It was cooperative, but extremely small-scale. Feudalism did not pave the way for socialism, either, but instead gave birth to capitalism. Capitalism's centralization and introduction of large, industrial production does give way to a large, single class that can collectively run and plan production, ie socialism. From Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Communism has not stopped blooming. Or, rather, it hasn't started, either. Communism is a future system of fully collectivized, classless production. Socialism is still thriving, of course, it's the form of economy of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

Tell me, what should I read of Marx that goes against the theory of historical materialism and scientific socialism?

We shall, of course, not take the trouble to enlighten our wise philosophers by explaining to them that the “liberation” of man is not advanced a single step by reducing philosophy, theology, substance and all the trash to “self-consciousness” and by liberating man from the domination of these phrases, which have never held him in thrall. Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse...

• Karl Marx, The German Ideology

One more, for good measure, from Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith:

Question 13: Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?

Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period.

Capitalism certainly lowered life expectancy initially, Marx makes this abundantly clear in Capital - Volume 1. However, with industrialization came advancements in socialized production (not socialist, socialized, ie cooperative work on an expanded and industrial scale in capitalism), which allowed for an acceleration of the sciences. Feudalism was holding science back, which in turn held medical science back. Same with farming, industrial farming increased outputs dramatically.

The Soviet Union and PRC absolutely made more dramatic improvements on a far-shorter time scale thanks to socialism, and indeed they did not rely on a developed period of capitalism (though they still depended on market forces), but the proletarian ideology of Marxism could not have come to existence without the prevalence of capitalism somewhere, this case being western Europe, allowing Marx to make critical advancements and Lenin to analyze the impacts on imperialism to successfully lead a revolution.

Feudalism was more obviously exploitative, and to a lesser extent than capitalism's theft of surplus value, but the sheer productive capacity of market forces ultimately provided the base for class struggle and development of proletarian ideology.

You too!

Well, I'll take that as a sign that the time we spent wasn't wasted effort.

Fair enough. As of the time I write this comment, I have actually expanded the comment and fleshed it out more with good articles to explain some nuances I left hanging that can be confusing without a background in Marxism, so I recommend re-checking it.

Both of us are ideological, whether that ideology be easily labeled or not. The truth is coming out, in my opinion, my point is that it's better accomplished when both sides engage equally.

I mean, I've made it clear that I think those have all applied to you thus far, yet I've still played my part in the game because I know it's more useful for onlookers to see the arguments than just dismissing the opportunity. If you truly believe me to be deluded and full of shit, bad-faith, etc, and know you're on a thread where more people will agree with me than disagree, then the only way your strategy works is if you engage with the arguments and win so thoroughly that they have to be acknowledged.

In the absence of pushing back against my arguments, all you've done thus far is give me a free platform to share my views, and good sources for those who wish to see them.

I'm not really trying to escalate or de-escalate. My goal is to either get you to walk away with a more nuanced understanding, one that adheres closer to reality, or to give onlookers good information. That's why I usually include a good amount of links and resources, even if I don't expect everyone I talk to to go in and read them. I've been directly thanked by other users for doing what I do and giving them new perspective or changing their minds, including users I have never spoken with previously, so I know my strategy has teeth to it. I may stumble in some conversations or do well in others, but as a net result, I can take pride in knowing thay my strategy is sound.

Either way, I would certainly hope you look at Marxist sources critically. All sources are biased, so it's better to be honest about it. One of Mao's more important texts that absolutely holds up today is Oppose Book Worship. A dogmatic comrade is more of an enemy than an ally, dogmatism leads to errors in judgement, and these errors in judgement lead to taking those who aren't actually enemies and are in fact potential allies as enemies.

For an example of this disastrous method in practice, see the Communist Party of Peru - Shining Path, who took the peasantry as reactionary and murdered 69 people in the Lucanamarca massacre due to the CPP-SP's adoption of the Gonzaloist tendency "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." This is not to be confused with Marxism-Leninism/Mao Zedong Thought, which is the ideology of the CPC (or, currently, Marxism-Leninism/Xi Jinping Thought, which synthesizes Mao Zedong Thought with Deng Xiaoping Theory for Socialism With Chinese Characteristics), "Maoism" is an Ultraleft tendency. "Ultraleftism" is taken very seriously as a threat to the communist movement.

Either way, I recommend reading ProleWiki, Qiao Collective, Red Sails, Liberation News, Fight Back! News, Comrade's Library, and, of course, the theoretical texts written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. (here collected on ProleWiki). There are of course many more sources you can check, but these are all explicitly Marxist-Leninist sources, from theory to essays to news articles to encyclopedia entries from a leftist perspective.

Read them critically, but check the cited sources, look for holes and gaps, don't just blindly reject or accept them. Critical reading is important for everyone, not just leftists. Any reading where you aren't engaging with the text and just uncritically absorbing it is book worship, and should be opposed strongly.

I fail to understand how trying to come to a better understanding through opposed argument works if you reject making arguments, but you do you.

If it's for yourself, then you would do well to engage more with the arguments, rather than dismiss them outright. The point of the dialectical method is to come to a higher understanding by engaging with opposition, not avoiding it.

Either way, I answered the other thread.

Re: "tankies"

I support AES, like the overwhelming majority of Marxist-Leninists, who in turn make up the overwhelming majority of Marxists, to begin with. I don't know what you mean by "full-throated." Do you mean I am loudly supportive, or uncritically supportive? If it's the former, I should hope so! A better world is possible! I refuse to cede ground to those whose stances align more with bourgeois narratives about AES states than proletarian narratives.

If it's the latter, then I disagree vehemontly. Criticism and self-criticism are core principles of Marxism-Leninism. The CPC, the largest Marxist-Leninist party in the world at ~96 million members, paints both Stalin and Mao at "70% good, 30% bad." That's hardly uncritical support. What is opposed is dogmatic rejection of socialist leaders. Critique based on dogma cedes the narrative to the bourgeoisie.

As far as examples, I already noted early Cuba's homophobia, the same applies to the Soviet Union (though some areas like the GDR became more progressive over time, and the USSR in general was extremely progressive from a feminist point of view compared to its peers), and the PRC as well, as an example. Socially, the PRC is behind Cuba and Vietnam, despite having a better economic model. Things are improving steadily, but they have a long way to go.

Does that satisfy, or are you just going to endlessly move the goalposts?

Re: "authoritarianism"

Marxist-Leninists are anti-authoritarian too. Hear it straight from Lenin:

While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.

Since all states are authoritarian, we need to abolish the state. But, we can only do that once class ceases to exist, and we can only do so once everyone's social relation to production is interchangeable and the same, ie a classless society based on collectivization. The goal of socialism is to accomplish this, and until all property is sublimated there will be class, and as such until then the state will remain, as it must.

If you're actively inquiring into socialist thought, then you owe it to yourself to explore Marxism-Leninism. It's the most significant and largest branch of Marxism, which in turn is the most significant and largest umbrella under the "socialist" banner. Here's an introductory ML reading list I made, check it out if you wish. If you're "anti-authoritarian," then you should explore what that actually means, beyond just supporting systems when they aren't in crisis and going back on that when they are (see the Nazi Germany vs. Modern Germany example for what I mean, both are equally "authoritarian" in that their class structure is the same but the extent of oppression was based on circumstance)

Re: Critique

I don't purely trust data from AES, I trust data that has significant historical evidence. This is hard to prove without specific examples, but in absence of that, here's my critique of the Gang of Four period of the PRC:

Theory must meet practice, and practice must inform theory. The PRC tried to establish Communism without developing the Means of Production adequately, readjusted, and has now rapidly developed. Holding an ultra-Maoist line like the Gang of Four that insisted it is better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism is Revisionism. Maoist Theory regarding Class Struggle did not meet practice, therefore the correct choice was to take a gradualist approach while maintaining CPC control so that when the Means of Production are more developed, they can be more Socialized in turn as Socialism emerges from Capitalism.

That should cover it, I think?

I agree, but if at the end of this I can get them to reconsider their position I'll consider it a win. Different strategies work on different people, some genuinely learn after being called out on their bullshit aggressively, others need a gentle hand, I figure if I stick with being patient and others less so the net has fewer holes.

Edit: looks like it worked out this time, at least to a degree.