Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Marx started to rework (greatly) his ideas of "The state" and if it should be seized or abolished early. He started leaning to "abolished quickly, and early".
He leaned towards elimination of the Capitalist State but that a Proletarian State cannot be abolished by decree, only via sufficient development of the productive forces and gradually wresting from the Bourgeoisie their control as such productive forces develop. To suggest otherwise would go against the concept of Scientific Socialism. Engels puts it best in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which Marx said in his written preface in 1880 "best characterizes the theoretical part of the book, and which constitutes what may be called an introduction to scientific socialism:"
Another emphasis, from Marx himself in Manifesto of the Communist Party, which Marx stood by to the very end with only slight alterations regarding the immediate destruction of the bourgeois state and replacement with a proletarian state after the lessons of the Paris Commune:
Finally, Engels in Principles of Communism elaborating that the folding of Capital into the Public Sector is a gradual process and not an immediate one:
Marx was not an Anarchist.
I never said he was an anarchist, and I never said he claimed it should or could be done in a single stroke.
Scientific Socialism requires one to learn from the past, and adapt as needed. It doesn't mean a dogmatic prescription of "how".
Then I fail to see how you can make this claim:
The withering away of the Proletarian State is not on the basis of "giving" anything "up." The basis is on the State folding everything into the Public Sector, at which point laws like Private Property Rights disappear alongside it. When the government has folded all property into the Public Sector, the State itself ceases to exist, there's nobody to "give up" and nobody to "give up" to. There is just the people, as they make up the "administration of things."
"Started down the track" is how I make that claim. He went from very staunchly "Seize the state, and use it to implement communism!" to "Well, thats not such a hot idea... we need to re-work that".
You know, the "scientific" part of "Scientific Socialism".
Simply because he shifted his position against the usage of the Bourgeois State into using a Proletarian State does not mean if he lived to today he would have gone any further than that. We must learn and adapt, yes, but not do so blindly. Ultraleftism out of dogma is flawed thinking that leads to incorrect conclusions, and I see no reason to believe he "started down the track" at all. Rather, he reframed, and this new frame has no theoretical basis for being a road at all unless you can make the case that central planning and public ownership of underdeveloped sectors of the economy is reasonable unilaterally.
There is no rational argument to say this. In fact, lessons borne out of past revolutionary experiments have shown us this is the route that leads to failure. Centralization of control, into the hands of the few, never leads to liberation of the working class.
That was a lesson he was learning, as well, and it was in its infancy at the time. We've had many more examples to learn from, and don't need to try it again.
Lessons bourne out of past revolutionary experience prove Marxism does work, but like all real systems, face real struggles. The answer is not to abandon it entirely and adopt Anarchism, which has not had real practical experience to draw from, but to learn from what has and has not worked in AES States. Centralization is the basis for true democracy, as without it the power of each individual aspect of society is governed by their locality. In an ever-interlocking world, the local cannot take priority over the whole. That does not mean all power should come from above, but rather that through centralization democracy can be better utilized from below and above.
To make the claim that AES is "centralization in the hands of the few" and that it "never leads to the liberation of the working class" is dogmatic thinking based on a false premise and false conclusion to said premise, and you haven't justified any of it. Such subjectivism does not constitute objective, rational reasoning, and as such fails to truly learn from the results of past and present Socialism.
Yes, Marxism works. Leninism (And it's offshoots) do not.
Marxism-Leninism is the only Marxism that has been put in practice, moreover Marxism-Leninism is not a departure from Marxism. I don't know how you say "Marxism works" and reconcile that with "Marxism-Leninism does not" within the same breath. What are you trying to say here? Where do Marx and Lenin disagree? How does Marxism work and Marxism-Leninism not?
That is wholly incorrect.
Neozapatismo is also type Marxism, and is not Marxist-Leninist. They are a non-white manner of organizing a communist society. (They will claim they are "None of the above", rightfully so, however, analysis will show it's a Marxist-based ideology and system, with some Anarchist ideology too).
Leninism is in fact, a departure from Marxism, as it fully drops the "scientific" part of the entire ideology. In fact, Leninism, arguably, isn't even socialist, since it merely gives us new oligarchs in lieu of the old oligarchs.
It could have been an experiment in Marxism, and I'd say it was an experiment in Marxism. However, it is certainly a failed experiment. The Neozapatistas have persisted for 30 years now, for example, and are so far doing much better than the Soviet Union did as a liberatory movement. Same with Maoism, which started off good, but made the same mistakes the Soviets did, and now we just have another capitalist state.
According to subcomandante Marcos, "Zapatismo was not Marxist–Leninist, but it was also Marxist–Leninist." To throw out Lenin's influences entirely is dogmatism. It is correct to say that it is its own thing, but in doing so we must acknowledge all of its influences, Lenin included.
Secondly, you make no explanations for how Marxism-Leninism "drops the scientific aspect" of Marxism. You make a blanket claim and make no justification for it. Furthermore, the idea that Marxism-Leninism provides "oligarchs" is also anti-Marxist, as I already proved above the concept of governments with administrators is a core aspect of Marxism, in erasing this factor you erase Marxism.
Thirdly, the idea that the Zapatistas with their 30 year history, though certainly a respectable indigenuous revolutionary movement, are "doing far better than the Soviet Union" is again, unsubstantiated, when you declare it as such and make no justification for it. The near-full century of experience of the Soviet Union, from doubling of life expectancies, to democratizing production and government with the Soviet system, to rapid industrialization, to free healthcare and lower working hours, to dramatic improvements in wealth inequality, cannot be simply swept under the rug.
I do agree that Mao made large errors, in trying to realize communism when the productive forces were not yet ready for it, famines occured and struggles happened. However, the PRC reverted to a Marxist-Leninsit line, one it continues to this day as a Socialist Market Economy. The idea that a country with half the economy in the Public Sector and another tenth in the Cooperative Sector, where the Private Sector is subservient to the Public Sector and gradually being incorporated in the Public as it develops and prepares itself for Central Planning, is somehow Capitalist, is again absurdity.
Again, Engels stated quite clearly that Private Property and Markets cannot be abolished overnight. The entire foundation of Scientific Socialism rests on the idea of modes of production as historical stages, as markets coalesce into syndicates they prepare the foundations for Central Planning and Public Ownership. One cannot simply press the "communism button" and skip developing the productive forces.
Throughout your entire comment you have
This is dogmatic Ultraleftism that goes against the very foundations of Dialectical Materialism. I suggest you make an effort to read theory, or return to it if you're just rusty. If you want, I have an introductory reading list you can check out.
Ok, so show us a Marxist-Leninist society, that hasn't turned into back into an oligarchy.
I'll wait.
What is an "oligarchy" in your views, and how does it differ from a "Marxist government?" In my opinion, the USSR, Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc proved to be examples of Actually Existing Socialism, and not "oligarchies," as all were/are governed by mass parties and democratically controlled both from inner-party democracy and democracy from the masses. "Oligarchy" implies absolute rule from the few, which is incompatible with the really existing examples of mass parties and democratic institutions. Taking the PRC as an example, the CPC has 96 million members, along with 8 other parties that serve advisory roles, and elections are held openly. In what manner is that an "oligarchy?"
Moreover, how can you simply refuse to elaborate on any of your claims that I critiqued? I didn't critique to silence you, but invite you to actually defend your claims.