Cowbee [he/they]

Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us

He/him or they/them, doesn’t matter too much

Marxist-Leninist ☭

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!

  • 23 Posts
  • 5.58K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 31st, 2023

help-circle

  • Sounds like Blackshirts and Reds did its job! As you point out, its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. In being a short and direct cry of support for revolution in the wake of the dissolution of the USSR, which set Socialism back dramatically at the time (especially because the 90s really did seem like China had abandoned Socialism, when we now know that that wasn’t the case and Deng’s gamble paid off), it also skimps out on thorough analysis and deep historical account.

    I want to add that the purpose of my list is to equip the reader with solid foundational knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, so that the reader may better make up their own conclusions and further explore theory and historical texts (though I do include a section on history later).

    As for Envisioning Real Utopias, I hadn’t heard of it until you told me, truth be told. My immediate reaction to trying to establish cooperatives to “overcome Capitalism” is that it doesm’t work like that. Cooperatives are better in that they avoid the excesses of standard firms, but since they fundamentally rely on exclusive ownership there is a barrier to scaling, and a lack of a collective plan. It merely repeats petite bourgeois class relations, an individualist view of the economy rather than a collectivist, resulting in an economy run by competing interests rather than being run by all in the interests of all. I actually wrote a comment on the communist perspective on cooperatives a few days ago.

    I also think that, eventually, you’ll want to read Anti-Dühring. Engels counters the cooperative model from a Marxist perspective. It’s the much larger book the essay Socialism: Utopian and Scientific comes from, so if you’re down for a challenge you can read Anti-Dühring instead of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

    Ultimately, it boils down to 2 possibilities, neither of which are good for the cooperative model:

    1. We try to build cooperatives within Capitalism, and establish our “seed bank” cooperatively. This runs into several errors:

    -The state will dismantle any legitimate threat to the Capitalists if Capitalists cannot find a way to profit off of this new development

    -Cooperatives alone are not enough to overcome Capitalism, rather, they replicate it in a different form

    -Production is already extremely complex and monopolized, the age of small businesses growing to huge powerhouses is dying. Cooperatives will always be at a disadvantage when competing with established businesses

    1. Cooperatives are the basis of a Socialist economy, where the workers have dismantled the Capitalist state and hold power over Capitalists, also called “Market Socialism”

    -Cooperatives compete and eventually begin to replicate bourgeois class relations, if the public ownership of the economy is not the dominant factor, ie in control of larhe firms and industries. A few cooperatives would scale and create a new Capitalist relation.

    Those are just my perspectives based on your summary. Cooperatives certainly aren’t bad at all, and are a part of Socialist economies as a minority of the economy, like Huawei in China or the collective farms in China. However, public ownership is still the key factor, as it goes beyond the profit motive and into allowing humanity to finally direct production for the needs of all, and not for the profits of the few.

    You’ll have plenty of time to develop your own opinions, cooperatives are certainly better than traditional firms, but you’ll find Marxists typically don’t agree with “utopia building” and other cooperative forms of ownership, and you’ll best see why generally in section 2.



  • I think you’re using your own personal experience with Marxists in your area as a blanket to generalize. Marxists as a general rule don’t spend all their time hypothesizing about future society, but practice labor organization, protesting, and building dual power (similar but not the same as prefiguration). The Black Panther Party, Marxist-Leninists as we all know, was famous for directly going out and feeding people, and protecting them from the State. The Party for Socialism and Liberation is at the forefront of the US-based pro-Palestinian protests. Marxists do get the here and now done.

    Your personal experiences are giving you a malformed view of the broader US-based Marxist movements, which are recovering from the heights of the Red Scare. They are also missing the global context, Marxists currently govern many countries like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, and China in particular is becoming more and more important in the world context, which has an impact on US-based organizing as well.

    I think you’re running into resistance because you have painted Marxists in general with your experiences of one subset of the particular.



  • I think you’re turning your disillusionment towards the Capitalist framework into nihilism about analysis of structures. Marxists frequently posit structures like the Soviet system, which feature both local, tight-knit councils and larger councils made up of representatives of these councils, resulting in a comprehensively democratic system. Without these higher rungs, large-scale planning can’t exist effectively, which means a fall in the level of production and a decrease in the ability of humanity to satisfy its needs.


  • My comment was more about how “authoritarian” discourse is meaningless, and more about perspective than anything else. From my point of view, the US Empire’s use of authority is far worse and more destructive than, say, Cuba’s, yet Capitalist media paints the US Empire as a bastion of freedom and Cuba as an Orwellian nightmare.





  • This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.





  • The “lot of Ukrainians” that saw the USSR as worse than the Nazis were the far-right nationalists in Ukraine spearheaded by Bandera. A “lot of USians” were certainly upset at ending slavery, to the point of armed struggle, but that doesn’t make them correct, either. Bandera was a far-right nationalist that is supported by the modern far-right nationalists in Ukraine, which is why there’s a problem with Nazi brigades like Azov increasing in relevance in Ukrainian politics post-Maidan.

    Further, again, the Soviets were unquestionably the most progressive force throughout the 20th century, from supporting revolutionary movements in Cuba, Algeria, South Africa, Vietnam, Korea, China, and more, to supporting Palestinians against genocide at the hands of Israel, to being responsible for 90% of the total Nazis killed in World War II and saving the world from fascism, to doubling life expectancies, over tripling literacy rates, democratizing the economy, and dramatically lowering wealth inequality.

    Yes, there absolutely were problems faced internally and externally, and there were mistakes and excesses. These pale in comparison to the deliberate acts of mass genocide perpetrated by Western Europe and the US throughout the 20th century and today, all while the USSR was under constant siege and the Western world reaped the spoils of Imperialism.

    Bandera and neo-Nazism are tied to Ukrainian politics. Nationalists are in control of politics, and the Banderites make up the majority of Nationalists in Ukraine. This is a sad reality that must be confronted, no matter what your stance on the modern Russo-Ukrainian war is, and it ties directly to Ukraine and the US being the only countries to vote against this resolution.


  • Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.


  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlI'm A Communist
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    You did not give “Marx’s definition of Socialism,” you erased dialectics from his analysis of the transition from one mode of production to the next. Marx frequently referenced commodity production even remaining in lower-stage Communism, the goal is to abolish it but the presence of it alone does not disqualify a system from being Socialist. State Capitalism was a descriptor for the NEP by Lenin, and he still considered the USSR to be Socialist in that it was a transitional state towards Communism.

    It’s extremely condescending when you act like you know more about a subject while admitting to not studying it.