Marxist-Lemmyisim.
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
5817 readers
13 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Way more chill and non-toxic than Reddit's r/Communism
was a far-right lunatic until about 2009, when I started turning left.
Life isn't a steering wheel with two directions, the world has much more to offer than "left" or "right"
reasonable tolerance of Catholic
Catholicism is simply full of shit. Keep studying and thinking and you will figured it out on your own.
Counter argument.
All political theory is a waste of time.
The only thing that matters is votes and winning elections.
Study the real candidates and their current policies. Work for the ones who will actually help the people.
Trying to split the hair of 'Marxist/Socialist/Social Democrat' doesn't get anyone elected.
mho
I don't really think this is a counter-argument, but a counter-thesis. When we look historically, the Russian "Socialist Revolutionaries" once celebrated an "end to theory." They believed that getting into the weeds on which strategy was correct and which direction to work towards fundamentally weakened the party. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, maintained that theory was strictly necessary, Lenin's famous line going "without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice." Today, we can easily see that the SRs were wrong, and the Bolsheviks were correct, and successfully their methods of analysis and revolution were applied elsewhere, like China and Cuba.
I addressed this first, because your core crux, that "only voting matters," is something every Marxist would reject. You rejected theory while quietly supporting your own, perhaps unknowingly, and this ends up working against your entire thesis. Marxists maintain that Revolution is necessary, because we have watched the success of Revolution and the failure of Reform through the 20th and 21st centuries.
OP is Brazilian and I'm American. Both of those places are much closer to the next election than they are to a 'revolution.'
And I'd argue that theorizing in a revolution is also useless. Lenin wasn't even in Russia when everything fell apart and only got in power because the Germans wanted to throw gasoline on the fire.
I (the OP) reply with from old lemmy.eco.br account because I don't see these comments from my new lemmygrad account.
You mention Brazil, so I have to tell of our recent history.
We elected leftist president João Goulart in the early 1960s. When he tried to enact reforms, a coalition of businessmen, Catholic theocrats and treasonous generals overthrew democracy in a USA-backed coup. The dictatorship lasted 21 years.
In 2002 we managed to elect president Lula da Silva, an intelligent working class moderate leftist. However, he bet on class conciliation (not class struggle). To be elected and then to govern, he formed a broad political alliance and made big concessions to the right. In 2014 there was a huge effort to overthrow his sucessor President Dilma (leftist woman economist, former guerrilla). Biased judges convicted Lula in later broadly discredited trials. Corporate media harshly campaigned against the Workers Party (PT). Corrupt hipocrites in Congress worked hard to worsen our economy, which was in a big fiscal crisis. For example, they established full pensions for women at the age of 52 and men at the age of 57, for those with documented jobs since the age of 18, in an old aging population. Politically motivated corruption trials dismantled some of our best companies. They broke the economy, blamed Dilma, then impeached her on made up charges. Now in power, those same right-wing hi'ocrites pushed for men and women to only retire at the age of 65 -- 13 more years (for women) than the previous year when they were opposing Dilma. They settled for 62 for women, 65 for men, still far less "generous" than they were in Dilma's opposition.
Before the next election, Lula, the most popular candidate, was imprisioned and then the "winner" was obscurantist far-right Bolsonaro, a loud fan of the military dictatorship. Bolsonaro made a very bad administration, lost the following election, then planned and put in motion another military coup involving the assassination or "neutralization" of the elected President, Vice President and a Supreme Court justice. We just barely escaped it, and Lula still have to fight an overwhelmingly right wing media oligopoly, far-right disinformation in the digital platform oligopoly, a terrible right-wing Congress, and impeachment threats. While far better than Bolsonaro, in this scenario Lula accomplishes far less than the people need. He cannot even stop the assassination of indigenous and land reform activists, let alone enact the long dreamed properly progressive taxation and democratization of the media (including digital platforms) oligopolies.
In Brazilian history, the economic parasites in the elite concede nothing without a fight.
I'll remove my original commnet. However, I still believe that the US is much closer to the next election than it is to a revolution, unless you count a right wing coup as a 'revolution.
Elections in Brazil and America will never bring about Socialism, though. Fuethermore, Lenin was not in Russia, correct, but the Bolsheviks had been working towards building up the Soviet System via Dual Power that led to successful revolution, and Lenin had played a major part in that. Moreover, it was the propagandizing and organizing of the Working Class that led to an actual revolution, which theory played an instrumental part in.
The New Deal was brought about by elections, as were the systems in places like Sweden.
Welfare state / new deal policies will always be precarious, because they leave things as they are: with capitalists in control of the economy and thus the political system.
Not only that, but many of these global north welfare states, are funded via imperialism (usually with a tax on imports of goods produced by super-exploited workers in the global south), which means these social services are just being carried on the backs of the global poor. Just look at where H&M has most of their production facilities for example. Poorer capitalist countries (which are the vast majority of countries), aren't able to fund much if any social services in that same way.
Some links:
Nothing there refutes the fact that, in the US, we're going to have an election before we have a revolution.
Also, if there is a revolution in the US, companies like Blackwater [or whatever name they have this week] are much better prepared to take over than the Socialists. It would be like when the Shah fell in Iran and the religious zealots took over.
The New Deal was brought about during a time of mass poverty in the context of the rising Soviet Union in order to prevent a similar revolution, the fall of the latter has resulted in a thorough destruction of the former. Same with Sweden, where disparity is rising and safety nets are crumbling. Further, Sweden depends on Imperialism to fund itself.
It also was a response to mass protests and strikes that militant labor movement was able to organize.
Yep! I don't think I said that outright, but the revolutionary pressure was there internally as well.
Neither of you points disproves the fact that the system improved due to democratic change without a revolution.
Like I said, the election will probably come before the revolution.
The system temporarily improved because there was a risk of revolution internally and a successful revolution externally. Without both, concessions don't come. Moreover, justifying Imperialism, ie vicious exploitation of the Global South, is monstrous.
Again, the election is going to come before the revolution.
Again, I keep talking about what is practical and do-able and you keep going on with theory.
Again, I point out that you can work for the election and still desire a complete overthrow of the system.
I was educated by old school Communists who fought in Spain and fought the Red Scare at home. One of the stories they always told was that in 1968 they told people to vote for Humphrey over Nixon.
An election without internal revolutionary pressure or a recent example of a successful revolution won't change anything, though. Theory must guide practice. By focusing on elections that cannot and will not change anything, and denouncing theory, you encourage people to stick their heads in the sand and watch as others change the world without them.
An election without internal revolutionary pressure or a recent example of a successful revolution won’t change anything, though.
Read some of the stories of the people who lived through the New Deal era and tell them that 'nothing changed.'
Like I already said, the New Deal was only possible because there was revolutionary pressure within, and a recent successful revolution outside to learn from. Where are these in the next US election? If you can't point to them, then you don't have a point at all.
So we agree. The New Deal changed people's lives without needing an actual revolution.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.
I have been having this same argument with people since I was in high school. I've seen plenty of elections come and go, and not one revoultion in over 20 years.
I'll stick with the thing I can see, and leave it to you to dream your dreams.
Good-bye.
It needed revolutionary pressure from within, and an external revolution to serve as example. Without each, there have been no real mass concessions. You have seen no revolutions, but also no concessions, and when faced with the reasoning you say it's better to not understand. That does make sense if you've been making this same false argument for 2 decades though, if you never attempt to understand anything why would you ever learn?
and when faced with the reasoning you say it’s better to not understand.
If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, please serve them with guacamole and chips.
Good-bye
You specifically railed against theory, explaning and understanding, what else could you have meant?
If you're going to twist my words, put them in a friendly pretzel shape.
Twist them yourself. What do you think theory even is? Theory is an attempt to better understand our present conditions and figure out the correct course of action with that in mind, and must be married to practice. It's like the scientific method. By rejecting theory, you reject analysis of conditions and strategic actions, which is why you either don't know what theory is, or are railing against understanding and strategy. Simple.
figure out the correct course of action with that in mind, and must be married to practice.
So, you're saying I'm right? That we should go out and find the actual best candidates in the next elections and work for them.
Thanks for proving me right. Again.
The best candidate last time was Claudia De La Crúz, but as we all know she lost and Trump won. Electoralism can't be allowed to actually change anything, the mover and shaker is working class organization. Without an organized working class, elections can't change anything, and theory helps us understand why that is and how to best go about that.
The reason theory is important is because it highlights that nothing can change without working class organization, and therefore putting electoralism in the primary you won't succeed at all, as has been proven over the centuries. Revolution on the other hand does work, and continues to do so.
The best candidate was Bernie, but the Socialists failed to outorganize the DNC.
It's hilarious that the same people who couldn't get Bernie past the DNC think they can win a revolution.
Bernie wasn't running, and Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a Socialist. If you had read theory, you can understand why electoralism isn't a valid path, but revolution is, and that largely stems from the fact that the Electoral system only allows those that uphold the system to participate to any real degree.
It’s hilarious that the same people who couldn’t get Bernie past the DNC think they can win a revolution.
Claudia De La Crúz, got even fewer votes then Bernie, even when he wasn't running.
Please, keep telling me about your powerful revolution.
Indeed, the 2 party system forces people to make concessions beyond what they actually support. If you read theory, you would understand that candidates who garner votes are not the same as the ones with mass public support.
Funny how your theory keeps telling you how powerful you are when you can't get 0.01% of the voters to support you.
But yes, I'm sure all the people who didn't vote for Bernie or de la Cruz will rush into the streets any day now...
Any day now...
History actually tracks with what you are sarcastically suggesting is impossible.
Keep telling yourself that.
Keep your nose out of history books and in the sand.
Keep telling yourself that.
Marxist-Leninist's (ML) like to cite "On Authority". Here's an anarchist view: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punkerslut-on-authority-a-response-to-friedrich-engels
I don't really think this is a productive text to link. It's littered with historical inaccuracies regarding the efficiency and working class upliftment that happened and continue to happen in AES states (which are indeed not magical wonderlands, but really existing Socialism nonetheless) such as the false claim that Chinese workers cannot strike. Furthermore, the author appears to be making a hit piece, rather than engaging with the text to see if there's any value to it, and in this process there are several errors. Honestly, I think it ends up being insulting to Anarchists more than Marxists, and I'll get back when I wrap up.
In the first section, the author describes a production process requiring no authority, just mutual consent. There are a number of issues here. The first, it assumes a lack of consent in a Marxist system. The second, it overly simplifies production. When you create a phone, for example, there are huge supply chains at scales unimaginable by any given worker, highly trained engineers and technicians to design and maintain both the machinery and the phones themselves, armies of safety and quality workers that ensure the conditions are not toxic and that the phones themselves are working and not dangerous, production managers who run the assembly lines, and educational bodies that train the workers, including the engineers. These educational bodies need methods of accountability at large so they don't teach false physics, like V=I/R instead of V=IR.
Engels argument is that production needs "authority." This is correct, no matter how you slice it, you must restrict freedom to misdesign, freedom to spill sewage into the drinking water, freedom to slack on maintenance, freedom to not do lock out tag out on machinery during maintenance. Engels also is making the argument that this is consensual to have a functioning society of mass cooperation and complex industry, but the Author tries to pretend it isn't and that only "voluntary cooperation" is valid. The Author misframes Engels and in the process slanders Anarchists who understand that some hierarchy is necessary and just! The only other conclusion is that Anarchism must be of a return to earlier production methods where complex industry no longer exists, but such an aim would result in the resurgance of Capitalism.
This strategy is the same for the whole article, misframe Engels point that "authoritarian" is nonsense as everyone needs some level of exertion of authority (such as to prevent a nuclear power plant from exploding), and then pretend Anarchists want a Utopia where everyone magically decides to just voluntarily arrange themselves in complex production while denouncing "authority" and that nobody would ever disagree with this. It slanders the Anarchists I know are more reasonable than this, and it misframes Engels entirely.
I could go on, but I think I made my point.
I appreciate your points. I know we are of conflicting persuasions and finding ML's that engage outside their echo chambers is difficult. Driving our convictions is the common goal of communism: a stateless, moneyless, classless society,
For complex production any necessary hierarchies should be managed by the workers and not a vertical power structure like a party. Assuming horizontal power structures are incapable of managing complex production seems unjustified. Workers produce, masters exploit. Socialism should be ordered from the bottom up to prevent exploitation by masters. Any necessary hierarchy to ensure communication happens between autonomous workers should be accountable from the bottom. A QA worker can let others know there are issues without a boss.
Engel's argues tools have authority over workers, thereby authority is unavoidable. The author of the linked essay would thereby push that to, "I need to breathe; Engel's says authority" which may be hyperbole. If I constrain someone's airway, they no longer have "power to" breathe and I have "power over" their ability to breathe. Authority thereby cannot be defined as natural like breathing or tool use. Authority instead is a constraint on "power to" imparted by another with "power over". I do not need a boss to tell me when to breathe.
For what it's worth, I used to be an Anarchist, so it's easier for me to see why Anarchists think the way they do and point out misconceptions about Marxism I had before really diving into theory. I hope you'll see that this is out of a place of trying to correct misconceptions, and not some smug "I've read more than you so my power level is higher" nonsense.
First, Communism. Marxists and Anarchists have a fundamentally different view of what the State is, and therefore what Communism looks like. For Marxists, the State is an instrument of class oppression, while for Anarchists its a monopoly on violence and a tool of hierarchy. The conclusions are that Marxists seek a global Socialist republic with full public ownership and central planning, and Anarchists seek a horizontal, decentralized network of communes. This fundamental difference in class analysis drives the real material differences between Marxism and Anarchism, so when you say we want the same thing, that's not accurate, and makes Marxism seem nonsensical (why would a system trying to reach horizontal communes work through central planning and public ownership if only to dissolve itself later). If you have an inaccurate view of Marxism, Anarchism seems like a much better way to reach what this faux-Marxism seeks, but that's all it is, faux-Marxism.
Furthermore, the Marxist argument against such a commune-focused system is that such a system would have fundamental inequality in rates of progression, which would work to reintroduce Private Property and thus Capitalism over time (elaborated on in Anti-Duhring).
For your second point, the role of a Party and its position within a society. This is... confused on your part. A party can be better described as "top-down, from the bottom-up." When you say that the party is "master," this is just wrong. Parties rely on democratic infrastructure, like Democratic Centralism, and an adherance to the Mass Line. Much of org theory is based on effectiveness and maintaining connection to the masses, simplifying it as an "exploitative master" is false thinking.
The fact that you concede that some hierarchy is necessary (say, the QA worker should be able to halt production and stop unqualified products from shipping even against democratic consensus) means you can understand how direction can be necessary. A QA worker informing others that the products are dangerous, without authority, can be ignored entirely, you assume that everyone without fail will "do the right thing." Moreover, by stating that this hierarchy must be accountable from the bottom-up, you agree with Marxist-Leninists. I think if you read The State and Revolution, you'd fundamentally agree with Lenin the whole way through. The major difference is largely language. To quote Engels,
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
The author has clear intent to discredit Engels, not to discern if he may have a point or not, leading to absurdity like the breathing comparison. You don't need a manager or director to tell you to breathe, but you need one to tell you that the latent chemicals within the products you are producing are toxic, as found by the QA worker, and production and shipping are to cease immediately, and to deny the necessity of this authority is to place the trust and safety of humanity purely in the good will of unaccountable individuals.
Overall, I hope you can walk away with a bit of a better understanding of what Marxists even want in the first place. I'd ask you how Anarchists would produce a smartphone, and how you think Marxists would produce a smartphone, and to see where the legitimate differences lie, not just language.
Thank you for the sincere response. Your knowledge of ML and anarchist thought is appreciated. You make some great points. Specifically the acknowledgment that communism is different for ML's and anarchist. I appreciate your insight.
I will begin with the production of a smartphone. The smartphone, in its current form, is an innovation of capitalism. We can both conceive a ML or anarchist smartphone. Given I am an engineer, I will speak to the engineering process. I live under capitalism, so can provide non-idealist insight there. I will follow that with ML and then anarchist production.
Regardless of political system the engineers get an initial set of requirements from somewhere. The initial requirements inform the engineers regarding what needs to be done. Prototypes are created. Tests verify met requirements. Shortening the user feedback loop allows better iterations since the initial requirements likely do not match end product requirements.
Under capitalism, the capitalist has minions that decide what needs to be built based on the profit motive. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager, the capitalist and consumers. The capitalist has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of the capitalist no longer work as an engineer.
Under Marxist-Leninism, party leadership decides what to needs to be built based on information from their subordinates. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager and party leadership. Party leadership has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of party leadership no longer work as an engineer.
Under anarchism, the commune decides what needs to be built based on information from consensus. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from the community. The community sways the iteration process since engineers that fail to move their community forward no longer work as engineers.
Perhaps my arguments are misconceptions. My experience with engineering has been shortening the iteration time by letting the user sway requirements, without a master with outsized power, allows products to meet the needs of the user. Current engineering practices are dominated by capitalist. The profit motive allegedly informs their decisions, but Smith's "invisible hand" is about as magic as Engel's "withering away of the state". A world where ML or anarchist engineering practices, not influenced by the profit motive or capitalist, would be riveting.
Outside of engineering, we have raw materials, transportation, manufacturing and distribution. I know less about these areas since I do not work in them.
If I believe what I have read, raw materials like cobalt are being mined for dominating hierarchies like corporations by independent contractors in exploited countries.
Transportation is being done by independent contractors on behalf of dominating hierarchies. Transport of raw materials seems decentralized. I am confounded why transport differs from distribution in terms of centralization under capitalism.
Manufacturing is capital intensive and tends to be centralized for complex production since not everyone has a clean room at home. Less complex production seems to follow the independent contractor model since most people can sew. I imagine this is a difference in the cost of capital.
Distribution is mostly centralized and seems capital intensive with fleet maintenance. I know there have been attempts to decentralize distribution similar to how Uber decentralized taxi services.
In closing, I would like to see engineering that benefits communities. I would like to see sharing of ideas and collaboration between communes. The assumption is that humans are social and helpful. When we assume humans are selfish and not social, then individual autonomy should be squashed by hierarchical authority.
I think there was a misconception. The QA worker can say things are bad. The other workers would then build consensus on next steps. The QA worker still needs to build consensus with relevant people, but can act if immediate action is required. Immediate mitigating action like stopping someone from walking into a busy street is a required imposition of hierarchy.
Wow, that was long. I probably have many misconceptions of ML ideas.
How do you feel about the name State Capitalism? I implied it in the replacement of capitalist with party leadership.
How do ensure those with "power over" subordinates do not abuse their subordinates "power to" do something? Under anarchism, the QA worker may be unreliable and the community can build consensus to not listen to concerns.
How is ML different from other domination heirarchies like feudalism, oligarchy and monarchy? My understanding is Stalin was God-King due to the heirarchy he commanded as General Secretary. Benevolent, omnipotent kings are a great form of government until you get a Nero.
How can we prevent Great Leap Forward's fulfillment of the Peter Principle, where individuals in heirarchies rise to the level of their incompetence? This is not unique to ML. Heirarchies can't promote productive workers. Nothing would get done.
I will have to re-read Lenin's "State and Revolution". I ended up engaging with Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon and Goldman more than Lenin or Mao. My readings may have been cursory.
Alright, thanks for responding! There are a bunch of misconceptions here, like I thought there would be, but I assume you already knew that due to your admission as such, and the purpose is to rectify those.
First, I won't really correct your Capitalist explanation, we both are familiar with Capitalism enough to know what it looks like.
Second, Marxism-Leninism. In all AES countries, it is not "party leadership" that dictates production, just like Joe Biden doesn't do any of the planning involved with the Post Office. "Party Leadership" tends to deal with overarching issues, foreign policy, and more. Industrial planning is done by Economic Planners, much like how you can get a job as a City Planner or Civil Engineer in the US. Engineers are subservient to their managers, much like in Capitalism, only the goal isn't profit but fulfillment of Use-Value. The importance of this is that administrative roles are a necessity for large, mass-scale complex production.
The education of the Engineer was provided by the government, with standards set in place at the government level by the Education Administration (or equivalent government body). These don't need to be party members, just regular people. The purpose of the party is to be made up of the most politically educated of the working class, unlike in Capitalism where party members are subservient to Capital. The Party is made up of the working class and is voluntary to join, and can purge opportunists and spies who seek to sabotage the Socialist system.
In Anarchism, I believe you're assuming too many things. Who decides "consensus?" Is every commodity at the whim of direct vote? Or do you have elected delegates, trusted to handle economic planning? If the former, how would we trust these people to not be under-planning or over-planning, if the latter, what's the difference from the government in Marxism-Leninism beyond name? Furthermore, where do educational standards come from for Engineers? Best practice? Is everything equally decided by everyone? If you don't formalize a body to exert some kind of authority to prevent malpractice, then you have malpractice. If you do, you agree with the Marxist-Leninists, your only objection being labeling this formalized group a "party" rather than a "committee," as though language changes form.
For the QA worker to have any genuine authority, it needs to be backed, and this backing cannot be purely voluntary or else it isn't actually authority, and can be ignored freely. Moreover, if you are talking smartphones, such a production process can involve many thousands of people, does everyone need to be involved over every QA issue, or do we make the concession that production would grind to a halt in a day if we did that and instead administration should be embraced?
Quick diversion to the Withering of the State: it isn't magic at all, rather, for Marxists the State is the instruments within government that uphold class distinctions, like Private Property. Upon making all property Public, there are no classes, so there isn't a need for private property rigjts, hence the "withering away." Government and administration remain, and things like the police change more to be social workers and armies are superfluous as Communism is global. That's the "withering away" of the State for Marxists.
Alright, onto your questions.
-
"State Capitalism" can best be used to describe the NEP, not Socialism in general. Parties are not classes, and central planning isn't done for the profit of party members. This is a confused understanding of Marxism.
-
Democratic Centralism and the Mass Line are core concepts to ML structure, along with Recall Elections in the case of removing opportunists.
-
Socialism is fundamentally different from feudalism and Capitalism because the basis is on a fully Publicly Owned economy. Just like managers are not a separate class, neither are administrators and officials, production doesn't all funnel into their pockets but is directed for the fulfilment of the needs of society. There's a lot of literature on the economies of AES countries I can link if you want. These aren't "benevolent kings," they can be opposed (and frequently were).
As for Stalin, there's historical record of him attempting to resign no fewer than 4 times, he wasn't unopposable and wasn't a God-King. He certainly wasn't a perfect man either, but he was elected and frequently opposed through the institutions of the Soviet Union.
- Administration is a separate skill from manufacturing. I'm not sure what your point is here, most Socialist democratic structures work like building blocks, a local council elects a representative for a regional council, then an area council from them, national, international, etc, with as many and as few rungs as needed.
Does that answer your questions?
view more: next ›