Commiunism @ Commiunism @beehaw.org

Coal mining enthusiast

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

135

Joined

8 mo. ago

At least his critique is clear and coherent.

If validity of theory was based on what its writers had done, then Marx would be worthless and Urban Guerilla doctrine would be invaluable.

Trade and wage labor also aren’t exclusive to capitalism.

Yes, trade isn't exclusive to capitalism, I never claimed otherwise. However, there is a distinction between commodity exchange for exchange-value (capitalist trade) and international distribution of goods to satisfy needs (socialist distribution), whether through planned allocation or transitional forms like labor vouchers.

Wage labor is specific to capitalism, it's a sale of labor-power as a commodity, exchanged for a wage, with surplus value being appropriated by a class/managerial apparatus. This is THE fundamental relation of capitalism, and you'd be better off reading theory than blindly quoting it.

Though I will give a concession - socialism is such a meaningless term that it means like 4 different things depending on who says it: liberals would say it's social democracy, ML's say its state capitalism, Marxists and Leninists say it's socialist mode of production (post-transition period) and Posadists would say it's when nuclear annihilation. A word doesn't make a thing so if you consider state capitalism to be socialist - fair, all power to you. However - Marxists, Leninists, Liberals would all collectively disagree. You did drop a Lenin quote to strengthen your argument so let me do the same:

• Lenin, The Tax in Kind

  No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

In the same text he also calls NEP USSR as state capitalist due to the concessions he had to make for the transition, which is explicitly made distinct from Socialism.

And I'm adamant that it's a mischaracterization. Identifying the dominant mode of production is not a "one drop rule", it's literally foundational Marxist analysis - modes are defined by prevailing relations of production, not how it's managed or ideological labels put onto them.

You've done a really good job misrepresenting my argument, keep it up.

That is another western chauvinist talking point.

Yeah, any critique of 3rd world communist countries is western chauvinism, therefore we should avoid looking at those countries through objective materialist perspective and uncritically support them just because they're third-worldist - that's something an imperialist crakkka like me should know.

That any development of industry (the primary task of countries who’ve just freed themselves from colonial rule), is a “betrayal” of socialism, because it didn’t go according to whatever the given critic laid out as sufficiently socialist enough, and that only the western critics of socialist countries have the correct plan.

I'd like you to point out where I said that industrialization is bad. The argument is literally about how the development was achieved and I concluded that it was through (state) capitalism and capitalist mode of production rather than socialism, even saying how it's good that they managed to build up wealth. I explicitly didn't moralize this either, this is literally how these countries materially functioned.

My critique also comes strictly from Marxism which is essentially the basis for communism regardless of culture, but sure.

China specifically can’t be called state capitalist in the slightest, considering that the CPC stands above the political system

You're confusing political power with class relations, the key isn't who holds political power but what social relations of production are. If a state (CPC controlled or otherwise) oversees an economy where wage labor, capital accumulation, commodity exchange persists, then it's still state capitalism.

What no theory does to you.

Yeah, if you're operating within Stalinist ML bubble. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's inherently "true", and it can be healthy to read other communist sides/perspectives. Some recommendations would be Marx's writings, Lenin, Bordiga if you want a lesser known but still respected Leninist who's critical of ML's/Stalinism.

No one claims magic here, and it's true - a transitional DOTP period must happen, but it's not a license to preserve the capitalist relations indefinitely. The fundamental relations of production that I've mentioned must be consciously dismantled over time as a precondition for socialism, that's what the proletarian dictatorship is literally for. If not, then it's only a matter of time until the state reverts to bourgeois control disguised as "socialist".

Nationalizing capital while leaving value production intact leaves capitalism functionally preserved, read Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx where he makes this explicit - converting private to state property without abolishing wage labor/value mediation and calling it Socialism is literally Lassallean nonsense.

Capitalist production is not magically nullified by the presence of a party member or state shareholding either: workers still sell their labor-power, surplus value is still extracted, production is for market sale or in other words, capitalist mode of production prevails at full force. Legal oversight is a managerial form, not an abolition of class relations.

Meanwhile the success in question: The 3rd world communist countries have managed to more or less industrialize and build up wealth, but under (state) capitalist system with all the bells of whistles which are markets, commodity production, wage labor, etc. In other words, they used capitalism to build up wealth.

Don't get me wrong, I actually think they had some absolutely amazing policies for the workers like free housing and social benefits, and good on them for building themselves up. However, this has nothing to do with socialism (socialist mode of production in this case) or communism as it was achieved with, and is therefore a win for capitalism - the same system that drove colonialism and the system that had already built up wealth for 'non-socialist' feudal/agrarian countries in the 19-20th century.

EDIT: Damn, judging from the amount of upvotes, it genuinely feels like walking into a bar and everyone drawing a gun and pointing at you. This is probably the most antagonistic I've been towards ML (or MLM/Dengist/Maoist) ideology and it's kinda disappointing how there's no actual non-ML Marxists to be seen here.

I love how the conversation went from "all billionaires are bad eat the rich!!" to "hey this good billionaire is talking smack about a bad billionaire, time to defend them from criticism because they did good thing"

Doing nothing is praxis

First time I'm hearing of that but no, it's mostly liberal progressive types here.

It's the first time I see the transphobic original message, and honestly I'm not surprised to see it within ML community. In general, they and the ideology is already rather cultish given their beliefs and the shunning of "wrongthink", but there's a smaller subsection of ML's who genuinely believe in this kind of reactionary chauvinism that's a complete bastardization of Marxism.

There's probably no one on this specific community who goes "hmm maybe there's some merit to that statement", but in case there is:

Trans people exist, and much like proletarians, their experience is shaped by our society and material conditions. They suffer through medical gatekeeping, discrimination and state violence among other things, all of them stemming from structures of capitalist domination, and just because occasionally some bourgeoisie opportunistically exploit these issues to garner support/profit from rainbow capitalism and the like, doesn't mean you should go full reactionary.

If you're torrenting and got some extra hard drive space, a good practice is to copy paste the game into another location and play for there. That way, you can modify or have the game update all you want without stopping seeding (as you need all original, unmodified files to seed), and you also have a backup in case something goes really wrong.

If an open world is just there for collectibles/unlocks or just feels otherwise unnecessary to the primary selling feature of the game (like story), then yeah its a hard pass.

Otherwise, if the open world is actually a core part of the game like in most MMO's such as Old School Runescape, then it can be quite enjoyable.

50/50, you either guess it right or you dont

In a number-go-up kind of sense, yeah - it's inherently gamification of social media and it is fun for some of our brains. However, I also think that karma or any other kind of "engagement accumulation" turns social media from a place of discussion into a competition for attention, where you're more incentivized to post solely for upvotes. Only a small minority takes posting seriously like this I admit it, but it does make the experience worse for everyone.

That's not to say the mindset doesn't exist without karma, only that it gets amplified.

Honestly, this applies to EU too. There are still communists out there in real world (mostly found in university groups, labor unions or just some very niche book clubs), but way fewer than when compared to 20th century thanks to the efforts of red scare, the hellscape of "socialist" regimes, etc. There's also the fact that if you want to be a communist, you need to go way out of your way to seek the theory and groups and actually study rather than having the ideology imposed onto you (but exceptions apply, like how Marxism-Leninism and Maoism can definitely be cultish).

Also, "liberal framework" in my comment was referring to viewing politics as choosing between good or bad, treating the system as being a fair, neutral arbiter, and it's how majority view electorialism since that's what is imposed onto us. Doesn't really have to do anything with progressives being referred to as liberals in the US, but just taking liberal democracy at its face value.

no way, bernie is actually based??

(Though to be honest, I don't get Bernie hate that much - sure, he's a bourgeoisie liberal and the perception around him being some revolutionary socialist is just outright false, but he lowkey might be the only 'sane' liberal out there in the US)

I'm not an american (but anti-electoral nonetheless), and I do get the critique and think it is perfectly valid if one views things through liberal framework - vote for the lesser evil, minimize suffering, not voting is letting the bad candidate on getting the upper hand, etc.

However, this isn't an objective position but an ideological one, as it operates within lesser-evilism, coalitionism within capitalist institutions and having a definition of "the left" that generalizes them to essentially having to be "pro-democracy somewhat progressive liberals", and any deviation makes them into a troll or a right winger or something like that.

What is important to realize is that most leftists aren't liberals - in fact, many leftists, particularly Marxists, view elections as:

• A way to legitimize the class rule that leads into passivity among the working class who are being ruled over, essentially recognizing that this "tool that we are given" is just an illusion and leads to neutralization of worker power,
• Enabling of 'capitalist-tribalism' in the form of "which capitalist manager do you support" which is seen in US through party loyalty and basically disarming the working class from realizing their own interests.

Essentially, their goal isn't to just "vote for the lesser evil" or "achieve the maximum good through the means we're given" but to abolish the system entirely, and electorialism/voting is counter-productive in that regard due to legitimizing effect that it has that I mentioned previously. This does go against the "liberal left" and their goals, and being on the same political wing does not automatically mean there's an alliance or shared goals, nor does it mean that two positions aren't going to have antagonistic goals.

Besides, why blame the left for the electoral failure who abstained from voting? Why not blame MAGA for voting in an enemy that goes against your interests (as in, people who have actually voted)?

EDIT: Reading some of the comments over here, and what the fuck. Automatically labeling people as bots or trolls for daring to commit the crime of 'wrongthink' is definitely dehumanizing and the most toxic I've seen beehaw be. It's fine to disagree, it's fine to choose not to engage, but making a post calling a certain somewhat niche political position out, having people such as myself try and explain that this position is more complicated, then going full on "nah I'm right, you're wrong, everyone who disagrees is now blocked and also not human or Russian/Chinese agents" is genuinely loser behavior to put it bluntly, especially on a "Chat" community where discussion is expected.

The influential people in opposition like Democratic party members or liberal news networks are fighting back, but only legally. I recall there being a reddit propaganda campaign by democrats where they would post weekly "what have we done" reports, having their angry public speeches against the current administration posted, there's also been lawsuits targeting the illegal acts and lots of media coverage all around calling Trump a big dummy. However, if you have been following the news, you might have noticed that the current administration doesn't really concern itself with legalities all that much, making the legal, liberal ways of fighting back pretty much toothless even if it does feel good in the moment.

After all, why try to mobilize/rally people to resist outside the legal, lawful means? Anything outside litigation, speeches and peaceful protests is immoral, and resistance via outside (possibly illegal) means would likely jeopardize their cushy lifestyles.

Though, this is irrelevant, and it's time to stop pretending that reactionary forces and people like Trump & Musk fell out of the sky and decided to start dismantling liberal democracies out of nowhere.

Thanks to working classes being deliberately weakened by both major political parties (both economically and in organizational sense), red scare, prevalence of neoliberalism, further division of the workers via things like party loyalty and culture wars, no education reforms and the liberal overlords being insanely out of touch (recall Kamala's response to egg prices), reactionaries have been able to get more and more ground. This was a long time coming, and today's 'supposed saviors that are doing nothing' were instrumental in allowing this reactionary sentiment to fester into what it is now, and despite what lots of people here believe, just getting rid of Trump & Musk is far from enough even if it would feel good.

Uncropped tweet, it's Dec 2019

That's pretty normal, we all do stupid shit as kids because of our environments/friend circles or just general growing pains.

Recognizing that what you've done is actually horrible is the most important step in terms of maturing and growing up, though of course it's not the full battle. After all, how would someone change for the better if they don't have such realization?

All in all you're likely not a bad person, just someone who needs to/is in the process of maturing.