this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Memes

52175 readers
659 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Interested in Marxism-Leninism? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tiredturtle@lemmy.ml -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
  1. Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.

  2. How did they "suppress workers?" AES came with dramatic democratizations of the economy, along with providing free, high quality healthcare and education, doubling of life expectancies, and more. Wealth disparity shrank while working class wages rose.

  3. How did they contradict "worker control and class abolition?" AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.

  4. How did purges and the cultural revolution harm proletarian "agency?" There were issues with those, but it wasn't about "agency."

AES is Socialist, in AES states the workers gained massive agency and power, and society begins to be collectively owned and planned.

The problem with your comments is that they say nothing. They make declarations, sure, but they don't explain any of the how or why, and as a result you get massive pushback and requests for elaboration. If you're actually a Marxist, you should be doing actual analysis and not making vague, unbacked declarations.

What of Marx have you read? What does a Socialist economy look like?

[–] tiredturtle@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
  1. How are workers "excluded from meaningful control?" Again, you don't say anything about how or why.

  2. I need to see some examples of "crushing independent unions and dissent." What unions, and what dissent?

  3. What is an "elite?" What does worker ownership look like in your eyes that differs from the democratic structures in AES? Further, the real material gains for the Working Class is a signifier of the Socialist model, AES worked for the Proletariat above all else.

  4. What debate and autonomy was suppressed? What are you saying should have been allowed?

As for why I am asking if you're a Marxist and what you've read, it's so I can fill in the blanks you are leaving. There's no discussion being had here, every time I ask for clarification you get more and more vague. If you explained that you're an Orthodox Marxist, as an example, I know where you're coming from and can fill in the gaps. If you say you're a Trot, I can also understand where you're working from. This isn't about power-level scaling with reading lists, I want to know where you're drawing your conclusions from, because your analysis contradicts the overwhelming majority of Marxists worldwide.

[–] tiredturtle@lemmy.ml -1 points 7 months ago

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.