Interested in Marxism-Leninism? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
I prefer Anarchist figures personally :3
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
27 points (58.8% liked)
Memes
46088 readers
1909 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Those can be good! But you really should read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they have some great works. Funny enough, Mao took a lot of inspiration from Anarchism as well, even though he was still a Marxist-Leninist.
Im a fan of Marx and Engels, less of Lenin and Stalin (especially their views on the Vanguard), and not too big of a Mao fan.
What's wrong with their views on the vanguard?
Im not personally a fan of the entire concept, I dont belive a vanguard is necessary and in many cases actively harmful. State socialism is very easily corrupted and imo the state should not own the means of production.
The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn't need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
So, the question in my opinion isn't if the vanguard is necessary, it's if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarchists want a fully horizontalized and decentralized network of cells such as cooperatives or communes. The Marxist critique of the Anarchist model is that that doesn't actually abolish classes, as it turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie interested in the success of their own unit more than the global economy. This goal and critique precedes Lenin, and originates with Marx and Engels.
What are your thoughts on that?
Imo the free market will always be more effective than state planning. Also under a syndicalist economy syndicates mostly work with eachother than against eachother. Im personally an Anarcho Syndicalist, I belive that whats good for the syndicates translates into direct benefit for the workers and by extension society as a whole.
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you're interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there's no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don't expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it's worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.
Food for thought.
I will look into your sources, they seem interesting
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I'll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!
Three cheers for murder
It was good that the Red Army defeated the Nazis.
Yes, the Nazis were very bad and I'm glad the Soviet Union defeated them instead of joining them and carving up Europe together
I am too, though that would never happen in a million years.
Oh yeah the leaders who caused untold destruction on their own people and started authoritarian regimes... Totally the same
What do you mean when you say they "caused untold destruction?" Do you legitimately think Tsarist Russia was better for its people than the USSR, or that the Russian Federation is better for its people now than the USSR was? Do you think the colonized, nationalist China was better for its people than the PRC? Legitimately.
In both the USSR and PRC, life expectancies doubled, literacy rates over tripled, disparity shrank dramatically while rapidly improving the economy, and famines ended in countries where that was previously common. No, not perfect, but undeniably massive improvements, and it is Marxism-Leninism and those millions who adhered to it that accomplished those massive victories.
