tiredturtle @ tiredturtle @lemmy.ml

Posts

4

Comments

223

Joined

2 yr. ago

Marxism emphasizes understanding the deeper class dynamics of society, not just surface-level opinions. Marx and Engels critiqued relying solely on immediate public sentiment because it can be shaped by ruling class ideology (eg., The German Ideology). A proletarian state requires scientific analysis of material conditions, not just popularity metrics. Insulting someone as "anti-communist" ignores Marxist principles of material critique over ad hominem attacks.

Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.

Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state's control, aiming to protect workers' interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.

Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers themselves but with the system that centralizes control rather than allowing workers direct control over their labor.

The purges and Cultural Revolution were significant in stifling workers' ability to shape society, as they involved the suppression of dissent and independent thought. These events were not just about removing political enemies, but about curbing the voices of those advocating for a more democratic and worker-controlled system. Marx envisioned socialism as a society in which workers could actively shape their own futures, not one dominated by a centralized authority.

Labels like Marxist-Leninist help unify political efforts, but they should not limit critical thinking or prevent independent analysis. To some labels provide clarity and structure, and there are also we adapting to changing conditions avoiding rigid dogmatism.

Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don't prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.

Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.

One of the key aspects of Marxism isn’t just about state control or central planning, it’s about the active involvement of the working class in managing production and society. If a state is controlled by a small elite, even if it calls itself socialist, it risks becoming a form of state capitalism rather than true worker control.

This isn’t about rigid, dogmatic labels which I can't help but notice in your assumptions of me. What is interesting is understanding material conditions and power structures. Discussing any state, does it give the workers control or whether it serves a centralized elite.

I’m not claiming that any state is "false" without evidence. It's an examination of how power operates in those states and whether it matches the idea of socialism where workers are in control. Doesn't Marxist analysis require questioning these things, not simply accepting a label?

In AES states, decision-making was often centralized in the hands of party officials or bureaucrats, not the workers themselves. Marx wanted workers to manage their workplaces directly.

Independent unions and dissenting voices were suppressed. Examples include the USSR controlling unions and the repression of Solidarity in Poland.

An elite is a small group in power, often controlling the state and economy. Worker ownership means workers democratically managing their workplaces without a ruling class.

The state suppressed critical debate, as seen in Stalin’s purges and China’s Cultural Revolution, stifling workers' ability to shape society.

I don't have a need to fall under any labels. I agree on the lack of discussion and sense there's a need to be judged for some invisible requirements which seem more vague than what I comment.

In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting "on their behalf." State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.

As for beliefs, Marx's critique of religion as "the opiate of the masses" doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.

As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.

Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.

Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.

Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.

Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?

The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t "actually a Marxist" or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?

Investigating Lenin, Stalin, and Mao applies Marxist analysis, not dogma. Their regimes centralized power, suppressed workers, and contradicted Marx’s principles of worker control and class abolition. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution harmed proletarian agency, deviating from socialism.

Equating AES states to socialism isn’t proven. This knowledge isn’t "Western" but aligns with Marxism’s demand for accountability. Marxism thrives on self-criticism; dismissing critique stifles its revolutionary potential. "Investigate" is a good guideline, and baseless assumption for the lack of aren't helpful. Dogmatism distorts Marxism.

The PRC being socialist would require that it aligns with the Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and revolutionary progress. Evidence suggests that the PRC's actions often prioritize state control and compliance instead of working-class emancipation. We shouldn't fall to beliefs, religion is the opiate of the masses after all

I'm not sure I understand the disconnect. I don't see my discussions as being lecture. I've only thought to participate and hope I haven't broken some taboo.

I do understand the concern in today's era

In the PRC, the Communist Party leads the state, but Marxism tells us to go beyond labels and focus on material reality. The ruling class is defined by who holds and uses economic and political power. If the Party and state genuinely reduce exploitation, improve living conditions, and build socialism, they fulfill a proletarian role. But if they prioritize maintaining power or allow inequality to grow, they act as a ruling class.

For the proletariat in China, their actions depend on their material conditions. If the system serves their interests, they should work to strengthen and improve socialism. But if exploitation exists, workers must organize, critically engage with the Party, and demand reforms that align with Marxist principles of dismantling class oppression.

It’s difficult to fully understand the proletariat’s sentiment in a context where opinions may need to be hidden and opportunities for agency could be limited. This makes critical analysis even more important to ensure that socialism actually serves the people.

Some users keep claiming the theory is just "AI slop" which is disheartening. I've already replied to a few.

I think there's a misunderstanding. I’m not claiming to have any answers, and I’m being critical of my own biases too. Marxism teaches us to question everything to see if they serve the working class or just maintain power.

When I say ‘challenge power structures,’ I mean education should help people understand class struggle and how to improve society, not just obey the system blindly. This isn’t about imposing some ‘Euro-centric’ idea but asking if education is helping build socialism or just keeping things the same. It's an universal issue.

I’m not AI, just someone who isn’t a native English speaker. I rely on translation tools, accessibility features, and autocorrect for help, especially on theoretical topics. That might explain why the style seems a bit off?

Marxism doesn’t see education as some abstract idea of ‘truth’ but as a tool shaped by material conditions. The question isn’t whether education is ‘true’ but who it serves. Does it serve the status quo, teaching workers to accept their place in the system. In socialism, education should aim to empower the working class and build a society free of exploitation.

Marxism encourages critical thinking, not blind allegiance. If education in any state doesn’t help people understand and challenge class oppression, it risks serving those in power instead of the people.

I haven’t researched how Americans talk about these topics specifically, but what I can say is that in a Marxist context, it’s essential to analyze how education serves the interests of the ruling class, regardless of the country. In reactionary states, the government controls the narrative to ensure stability and maintain political power, even if the education system appears progressive. Theory argues that true education should challenge existing power structures and develop class consciousness, but state-controlled education often aims to preserve the current system. So is there fostering of critical thinking, or merely reinforcing a controlled worldview, as any state does to maintain its authority?

I'm not arguing. The American Way is already how the ruling class stifles the people

The claim that the comment "is slop" might overlook socialism and the role of education in class struggle. According to Marxism, socialism is about dismantling class structures and empowering the working class to control production and governance. Education under socialism should awaken revolutionary consciousness, not simply train workers to serve the system.

Marx warned that the ruling class controls both production and ideas to maintain power. A true socialist education system would encourage people to challenge these structures, not support them.

Educated people won't stay obedient. That's why reactionary powers historically avoid aiming for truly educated masses—they prefer a controlled education system that reinforces their ideology, not one that fosters critical thinking or revolutionary action.

China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote? True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures, but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.

As Marxist theory teaches us, the ruling class controls not just the means of production but also the means of ideas. The flex here is not in building 'education power,' but in demonstrating the capacity to shape minds for the future workforce, ensuring stability within their system of production and governance. In this context, the plan isn't just about making smarter citizens; it’s about making a more compliant society under the guise of progress.