Lisa’s only mistake was saying yes.
Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.
Proletariat? No, just “worker”.
Bourgeoisie? No, just “elites”.
Capital? “Stuff”. Like how in baseball they say a pitcher’s got good “stuff”. Use your human stuff.
Class Consciousness - “common sense”.
Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.
Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world “materialism”
Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”
As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.
As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.
Personally, I’ve strived to adhere to the Einstein quote:
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.
This not only applies to theory but language in general. If you, an English speaker, wants to ally with someone who only speaks Mandarin, the two of you will need to figure out how to understand simple shared concepts first (“water”, “car”, “help”).
Theory is the same. I don’t think we should completely do away with the proper verbiage. But, I do think we need to figure out how to translate our message in more ways than just language— I’m talking cultural. Because, right now, there are a lot of working class Americans who have been convinced that capitalist exploitation is American culture.
Sure, I don’t see why these two concepts can’t be pushed together. Don’t hide your intentions or obscure them, but explain them clearly and directly, in an understandable manner.
You saw the Simpson meme above right? That’s not entirely an exaggeration. The “S” word is legitimately terrifying to both American conservatives and immigrants who fled dictatorships.
It’s “explaining clearly and directly” that has been met with great resistance, actually. You forget we now live in a post-truth society.
I think you’d benefit greatly from reading “Brainwashing” followed by Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” My strategy entirely changed after reading these, people will not side with you truly if they already license themselves to believe something else. This coincides with the real experience of Communists and other Leftists historically, Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist talks about maintaining this honesty in dealing with the rest of the Working Class who may not be radicalized yet. This keeps us in touch with their needs and desires, preventing commandism or tailism.
American conservatives are not going to align with any kind of Socialism except for PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics. This needs to be combatted direclty. Cubans leaving Socialism because their slaves were taken away by Castro are not going to have the same class characteristics, same with small business owners in the US.
Over time, as the conditions in the US Empire decay, more conservatives will be proletarianized and open to Communism and Socialism. It is a danger to let these narratives be driven by Nationalists in the Imperial Core.
Thanks for the literature but I know how to speak and relate to my neighbor. Many grassroots leftist organizations already implement what you’re talking about via mutual aid efforts and building community trust.
There is a strong individualist and isolationist mindset among the average American conservative. What I’ve come to learn is that being direct and honest about what Socialism is does not help because they’ve already formed a concrete belief about the buzz word. So, when I’m speaking to a suspected right-wing working class person, I do not use the buzz words while still conveying the meaning using words they commonly use themselves— hence what I said about translating our message in more ways than just language but also culture.
“Cubans leaving Socialism because their slaves were taken away by Castro are not going to have the same class characteristics”
Incorrect. There are many poor, working class Cubans (white, brown, and black) who vote conservative. You don’t have to be one of the elite to support their politics.
I don’t know what you mean by saying Mutual Aid networks “already implement what I’m talking about.” Are you saying Mutual Aid networks are spreading theory? Just want clarification here, charity is a good thing but that’s not what we were discussing to my knowledge.
As for the individualism and isolationism, that’s due to the class characteristics of the US Empire. As it depends on Imperialism, and has a large population of petite bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, it is much harder to get genuinely leftist ideas to penetrate. The solution, however, isn’t to contribute to that by obscuring your intentions. A right winger suddenly thinking universal healthcare is a good idea won’t change the fundamental systems at play.
As for Cuban immigrants, it has been a long time since it became Socialist, and the Land Reform Act enacted. The descendents of these Cuban Exiles largely side with their parents, who tended to be against the Socialist revolution, as they were among the ones who lost out. Other exiles leaving due to the conditions imposed on Cuba by the US Empire’s brutal trade embargo aren’t likely to be convinced either.
You have to meet people where they are at without obscuring, otherwise you allow them to control the narrative.
I don’t think we should be emulating Lenin or the USSR. I think that’s what is backfiring.
“Read theory” is how they trick us, forcing us into dogmatic religious-like application of historical texts.
Why don’t we write theory? Marx and Lenin weren’t gods. They got things wrong.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR. I don’t see what is “backfiring,” if you could elaborate on that I’d appreciate it. The thing is, the USSR broadly got many things unquestionably correct. They also had missteps, and we can learn from those just as much as we can from their achievements. The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
As for reading theory and “dogmatism,” this is indeed a problem, but not as big a problem as avoiding theory. You might find it fitting to start with Oppose Book Worship, which deals with just the problem of overly-dogmatic comrades that only ever read theory. You must read theory and test it via practice, each informs the other.
As for new theory, there is new analysis all the time! Much of older theory absolutely holds up, especially Marx and Lenin, but new theory exists too. I am currently reading Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism, which analyzes the modern form of the US Empire and how it extracts wealth as a debtor country. The reading list I made has older theory I consider essential, as well as newer works.
1·10 days agoOne might say that Marx is like Newton, describing/discovering many things and setting a foundation for their field. Saying “we shouldn’t read Newton because his stuff is old” or that his ideas are wrong simply because they are old is ludicrous. Both of them probably had things they got wrong, sure, and newer theory corrects this, but they still set the foundations.
While one might not read Newton directly in school, so for some Marxist theory it is too (see Elementary Principles of Philosophy teaching DiaMat), but Marxs books that haven’t been superseded in this way should still be read.
Fantastic way of putting it! People have iterated on Marx and Lenin, but the basic building blocks were first set by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and as a consequence modern theorists use those tools in new conditions. You must still engage with these tools to have a better idea of how they apply to modern contexts.
Similarly: Saying we shouldn’t read theory, is akin to saying we shouldn’t learn science. You are going to have a very difficult time doing particle physics if you have no understanding of the world. Exactly as we say that without theory you are just going to be redoing the same stuff, so would every scientist have to rediscover the basics.
100%, excellent point comrade. For any onlookers, the concept she is describing here is the foundation of Marx’s notion of Scientific Socialism, analyzing human development as a science like any other in order to master its trajectories. Just like fire was once dangerous and sporadic for cavemen, the advancements in understanding how to start and control fire leaped development forward. So too can mastering the laws of human societal progression and organization.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR.
Learning from their mistakes. Not emulating a failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
I don’t see what is “backfiring,”
Americans fear the word “socialism” because they associate it with brutal authoritarian dictatorships. Your love of Lenin and the USSR isn’t helping with that.
The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
The only thing the PRC learned was to abandon socialism. Canada is more socialist than the PRC.
You keep linking books to read. I think we’ve read enough. It’s time to start writing.
The USSR wasn’t a “failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship,” though. They democratized the economy, ended famine in a country where that was regular, over tripled literacy rates from the low 30s to 99.9%, dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth, defeated the Nazis, proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and more.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided. If we are to establish Socialism, we must be honest about it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics. Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses. Canada, on the other hand, is driven by private property and Imperialism.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes. This is throwing away perfectly good tools, and is what doomed the SRs in Russia and why the Bolsheviks succeeded.
They democratized the economy,
They had absolutely no democracy.
ended famine in a country where that was regular
They deliberately caused famine.
dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth
They were ended by the very corruption and wealth inequality you claim they lowered.
defeated the Nazis,
With the help of capitalist empires.
proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well
It did not work well.
provided free and high quality healthcare and education
We do that in Canada, too.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided.
Yet you dismiss everything bad ever said about the USSR as “Red Scare propaganda” to conveniently throw it under the bed and avoid it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics.
China has banks. Stock markets. Billionaires. Absolutely nothing about their economy is socialist or is driven by marxism.
You can’t back these statements up with any evidence. You just make bold proclamations and assert them as true because you said they were, and if anyone doubts you they just have to “read theory”.
Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses.
None of what you just said here is true.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes.
Yes, but unfortunately you have dismissed everything you have read as “Red Scare propaganda”, or likely “Yellow fever propaganda”.
They had democracy. Read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, or read this infographic:
They did not deliberately cause famine. There is no reason for this in the first place, as that weakened their economy and starved millions.
The Soviet Union was not ended because it lowered wealth inequality. Wealth inequality was lowered until after the Socialist system dissolved. What caused the dissolution of the USSR was a combination of various factors such as Gorbachev’s liberal reforms ceding power over large firms to Capitalists, a huge amount of GDP spent on the millitary to protect against the US, and the continuing to plan by hand rather than use computers at scale later on as production complicated.
As for defeating the Nazis, there was some degree of assistance from the Allies, but 80% of the combat against the Nazis was done by the Soviets. They outweighed the contributions of every other allied power combined, by several times.
As for the economy, it worked very well, actually, until later on in its life. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? and looking at the following data on GDP growth:
Canada has some safety nets, sure. I never said you cannot have safety nets without Socialism, we were talking about the effectiveness of the Soviet Union, which had those safety nets before Canada despite being lower in development levels than Canada.
I don’t actually dismiss everything bad about the Soviet Union as propaganda, only propaganda. I have quite a few critiques of the USSR in this comment alone, however it’s hard to discuss the genuine faults when your view of the USSR is based in fiction.
China indeed has private property and banks, even billionaires, however the economy is driven by Public Ownership. Marx spoke about how the large firms were to be nationalized, and that small firms would be nationalized as they developed, gradually. This is because of Marx’s concept of Historical Materialism and Socialism as an economic inevitability as time progresses. You yourself have been railing against theory, why should anyone trust your opinion on Marxism?
Everything I said about the PRC is true, though.
I never needlessly or dogmatically dismissed anything, and unlike you I brought reciepts. The important issue here is your repeated unwillingness to look at facts, simply denying them without offering anything to support your claims or debunk mine. There’s nothing to work off of that way.
You people have good luck with this? I haven’t. I don’t find that you can just “trick” people into believing in socialism by changing the words. The moment if becomes obvious you’re criticizing free markets and the rich and advocating public ownership they will catch on.
i agree that we shouldnt be dishonest about it, socialists have to be openly socialist, i just think the terminology we use is kind of shitty and outdated. ‘elites’ certainly rolls off the tongue better than ‘burgeoisosdisoie’ and means just about the same thing, except its already on peoples vocabulary.
Correct, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
Being honest with what you want and why has a far better track record, we see this in Socialist revolutions and in mg own personal experience with outreach.
I have the rather controversial opinion that the failure of communist parties doesn’t come down the the failure of crafting the perfect rhetoric or argument in the free marketplace of ideas.
Ultimately facts don’t matter because if a person is raised around thousands of people constantly telling them a lie and one person telling them the truth, they will believe the lie nearly every time. What matters really is how much you can propagate an idea rather than how well crafted that idea is.
How much you can propagate an idea depends upon how much wealth you have to buy and control media institutions, and how much wealth you control depends upon your relations to production. I.e. in capitalist societies capitalists control all wealth and thus control the propagation of ideas, so arguing against them in the “free marketplace of ideas” is ultimately always a losing battle. It is thus pointless to even worry too much about crafting the perfect and most convincing rhetoric.
Control over the means of production translates directly to political influence and power, yet communist parties not in power don’t control any, and thus have no power. Many communist parties just hope one day to get super lucky to take advantage of a crisis and seize power in a single stroke, and when that luck never comes they end up going nowhere.
Here is where my controversial take comes in. If we want a strategy that is more consistently successful it has to rely less on luck meaning there needs to be some sort of way to gradually increase the party’s power consistently without relying on some sort of big jump in power during a crisis. Even if there is a crisis, the party will be more positioned to take advantage of it if it has already gradually built up a base of power.
Yet, if power comes from control over the means of production, this necessarily means the party must make strides to acquire means of production in the interim period before revolution. This leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that communist parties must engage in economics even long prior to coming to power.
The issue however is that to engage in economics in a capitalist society is to participate in it, and most communists at least here in the west see participation as equivalent to an endorsement and thus a betrayal of “communist principles.”
The result of this mentality is that communist parties simply are incapable of gradually increasing their base of power and their only hope is to wait for a crisis for sudden gains, yet even during crises their limited power often makes it difficult to take advantage of the crisis anyways so they rarely gain much of anything and are always stuck in a perpetual cycle of being eternal losers.
Most communist parties just want to go from zero to one-hundred in a single stroke which isn’t impossible but it would require very prestine conditions and all the right social elements to align perfectly. If you want a more consistent strategy of getting communist parties into power you need something that doesn’t rely on such a stroke of luck, any sort of sudden leap in the political power of the party, but is capable of growing it gradually over time. This requires the party to engage in economics and there is simply no way around this conclusion.
Dialectical Materialism
How about “a tug-of-war between owners and workers for jobs, resources, and technology”
Three examples:
Factory Work and Labour Unions
Early 20th-century factory jobs involved long hours, low pay, and unsafe working conditions. When workers tried to unionize, factory owners often resisted, viewing unionized labour as a threat to profits. This created a direct conflict: owners wanting to keep costs low vs. workers demanding better wages and safer workplaces.
Automation in Warehouses
Warehouses (e.g., Amazon fulfilment centres) are increasingly adopting robotic systems to speed up sorting and packing. Employees might feel pressure to meet higher performance metrics set by a partly automated workflow, while also fearing that further automation will reduce human jobs. Here, the “tug-of-war” is between technological efficiency (and profit) vs. workers’ job security and well-being.
Tech Industry Outsourcing
Companies sometimes outsource tech-related jobs to countries with cheaper labour costs. This lowers expenses for the company but can lead to local layoffs and economic hardship for employees in higher-wage regions. The conflict revolves around the benefit of increased profit margins for the company vs. the material needs of domestic workers who lose their livelihoods.
Too long, I’d suggest “boss-busting”, after “rentbusting”. Or “bosses keeping workers hostage”, maybe?
Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.
Practical historical development?
Definition: Practical historical development looks at how money, jobs, and resources shape how societies change over time. It shows that the ways people make things, the tools they use, and how resources are distributed build the base for how societies work. Instead of thinking that big ideas or beliefs drive history, this view shows that real-world conditions—like who has what resources and how work gets done—create the path for changes in society and politics.
The problem with many conservatives and regressives is that the only change to the status quo they seem content with are based on bigotry rather than economics.
Instead of thinking that big ideas or beliefs drive history,
So dialectical materialism rejects the notion of ideologies like socialism?
No, Dialectical Materialism asserts that material reality drives the progression of history, and is the primary determiner of ideas, but that these ideas of humans influence them to reshape reality. This process works in endless spirals. Here’s a handy diagram:
Dialectical Materialism asserts that material reality drives the progression of history, and is the primary determiner of ideas, but that these ideas of humans influence them to reshape reality. This process works in endless spirals.
This reads like the word salad Jordan Peterson spews. It’s vague and doesn’t make any sense. Here’s a better image.
Jumping to insults, rather than asking for clarification on aspects that you are unsure of, doesn’t accomplish anything.
Regardless, in another phrasing, people’s ideas are shaped by their environment and current set of knowledge. When people act on their environment, their environment changes, informing them of new things and ideas, which in turn influences how they choose to act. This is repeated over and over, when people put their ideas to the test, parts of their ideas are confirmed, and others are rejected, allowing new hypothesis to be tested and confirmed or denied.
This is all obvious, of course, but Dialectical Materialism asserts that the primary driver of this process, ie which comes first, is the environmental aspect. People exist in their environment first, and then form their ideas based on that.
Of course, Dialectical Materialism has much, much more to it than that, such as looking at material reality in the context of motion, ie the river you see today is different from what it was yesterday because sediment has been eroded.
I didn’t write any insults. I attacked your arguments. I said they were reminiscent of Jordan Peterson’s word salad. I’m saying you aren’t saying anything of substance. You’re stringing a bunch of lofty concepts together in an attempt to sound smart, but you aren’t saying anything at all.
I think that’s what Marx was doing at many times too, but unfortunately some people are incapable of questioning it and instead just repeat it verbatim.
“I’m not insulting you, I’m just saying you’re writing word salad devoid of substance like a notorious quack”
You directly compared me to Jordan Peterson, and you know I’m a Marxist, surely you can connect the dots and see how that would be insulting. Own up to that.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by Marx trying to sound smarter, or just regurgitate word salad? Or how it is that I don’t question Marx? Agreeing with him generally doesn’t mean I do so thoughtlessly.
American try to care one iota for your fellow man or really anyone other than yourself challenge (impossible):
During covid, going to a rural area in the US really got to me. The population is so individualistic / freedom-brained / “i do whatever I want all the time”, that their grandmothers all dying meant nothing to them. I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.
Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it’s still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don’t let other farmers starve, in Canada.
I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.
What does this mean?
USonians used to be more community-focused. In the 1950s polio was eradicated due to massive community efforts, showing that they were willing to do things to benefit their community.
Nowadays they won’t even do the same to benefit their extended families.
“Fuck you I got mine”
But when he says “smaller and smaller groups of people” does he mean that this kind of mentality isolates people to increasingly smaller groups?
It used to apply to different groups in the past.
Fuck you, my community got ours
Fuck you, my friend group got ours
Fuck you, my family got ours
And now we’re finally at
Fuck you, I got mine
Dont you love individualism 🥰 /s
I live in the USA and its so bad i just cant interact with most people. They are basically entirely vibes based. They dont research anything if they hear a new claim they decide if its true based on if they feel like its true. You can literally show them evidence and most will be like “nah thats bs”. I made a comment on 小红书 recently about how 54% of americans read below a 6th grade level and my replies are FULL of americans saying “uh i can read” … can you really?
about what youd expect for a country thats been the global epicenter for anticommunist propaganda.
Of course, you could just talk about “Tax The Rich” or “Bring Back the New Deal” but then how could people know you read Karl Marx?
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how to rephrase socialist ideals as capitalist bills for the sake of America.
I want to propose a “Proof of Economic Viability Bill” somewhere if I can find the right influence point.
Basically, financial advisors suggest that people should pay no more than 30% of their income towards living expenses. Knowing that the vast majority of Americans only have income from their primary job, this means that any business should be expected to pay no less than 30% of their income, evenly divided across the entire workforce (cart pusher to CEO), as a “living expense allotment” to prove they can afford to pay their workers enough to live and stay afloat. This will push out companies who are doomed to fail because of a lack of available workforce, allowing more economically viable options to reign king.
Edit to add: you can make this sound a little nicer to the maga crowd by telling them they can reduce wages by doing this. I don’t necessarily care that you’re paying minimum wage as long as you can afford to put your worker in a home and fill their stomach.
Stop using polysyallabic words like “proletariat” when trying to appeal to the American working class who read at a 5th grade level.
Seriously. Like the guy in Severance said. Apologize for the word. It’s too long.
Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics. You need to be honest with people, otherwise they will learn they have been tricked and resent you. Further, this isn’t really Socialism, but Capitalism with bigger safety nets.
The problem with policy is that it needs material foundational backing, otherwise it will be walked back if the class in power doesn’t like it.
I see your concerns, I really do. Poke around my account and you’ll see the other steps that need to come along with these bills which I’ve suggested around a bit. Basically, I’ve been asking people and trying to spread some influence to get some real socialism going at the same time
I have too, and I’ve tried it both ways. Openly being a Communist and explaining clearly and exactly why I hold the views I do has netted me more acceptance and respect. I even made a Marxist-Leninist introductory reading guide, which has netted several new comrades and still gets new upvotes even months after originally posting it.
And I greatly appreciate work like yours. I believe we need to do both. There are people who will be easier to convince if you use those magic words because that’s what works for them. There are others who will be easier to convince if use more maga-friendly terms. The important part is that bills like that need to be introduced in the correct way.
It is possible, as an American citizen to draft and propose a bill to your senator with a petition to your fellow man. We need to go convince people, in whichever works for that particular individual, to sign these petitions for bills that will help them. We need to convince them to vote for them in whatever ways will get them to do so. But we need to draft those bills carefully and ensure they get shot down if they get twisted in the chambers.
The “magic words” bit generally isn’t true, though. I recommend reading “Brainwashing” followed by Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” My strategy entirely changed after reading these, people will not side with you truly if they already license themselves to believe something else. This coincides with the real experience of Communists and other Leftists historically, Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist talks about maintaining this honesty in dealing with the rest of the Working Class who may not be radicalized yet. This keeps us in touch with their needs and desires, preventing commandism or tailism.
Further, signing petitions and trying to force the ruling parties into action generally doesn’t work without millitant labor organizing.
I’ll have to look into those. My reasoning behind the “magic words” thing is two-part and quite likely outdated: research and anecdote.
Quick side note before the meat: Also, I appreciate that we’re keeping two lines of thought going across these two comment chains. Not a skill I see in others often, but one I enjoy having in my friends for moments like this.
The basis comes from my understanding of how propaganda works, but honestly mostly comes from my memory on the classes in school. Granted, I paid a lot more attention in school than a lot of my peers but I haven’t done as much research since then as I should/probably you and other more theory-oriented communists have done so I can probably get schooled a bit. Basically, I like to make use of emotion-provoking terms a lot. In person, I do so by trying to befriend people from across the aisle to observe them and listen to them. They’ll use the words that matter to them, “egg/gas prices” or “housing crisis” or whatnot. Then, I find ways that their “team” has hurt the things that matter to them, and I’ll go and talk to them about those bills. Usually along the lines of “Hey did you see this? It’s got these great benefits for us but those rat bastards snuck in x/y/z” and over the course of a few months I’ve gotten a good handful to start noticing the pattern (this is where the anecdote comes in).
I’ve convinced a traditional “good ol boy” from Oklahoma (I learned so many slurs from him in the first few months) in the past to argue for communism against one of his classmates just because he didn’t like that classmate at the time. After about 2 years of knowing this guy, he was the type of ally who would stand up and knock a motherfucker out if he heard you say something homophobic in passing. And the best part was that I never even tried for that bit, I only ever tried with economic strategies with him and he figured out the humanitarian aspect on his own
It’s the opposite, actually.
The people who talk about “tax the rich” or the New Deal don’t actually do anything, they are armchair activists who have no real idea of how they would ever accomplish this outside of pretending the Democratic Party, which constantly opposes them and crushes such ideas, is the vehiclr, and the way to make it happen is complaining on the internet.
Communists know that actually addressing our collective problems is a much more difficult task, nothing less than the overthrow of capitalism, something that would need to survive attempts at cooption by liberal power structures like the aforementioned party. So we build from the ground up, educating one another and developing practice so that we can balance growth, education, and having impact through actions. We go to the meetings, we run the meetings, we teach one another, we organize the protests and marches, we build the strategic mutual aid events, we embed with workers’ spaces and unions, we embed with and build from within the marginalized so as to be of them. Communist organizing is adding a part-time job on top of your other obligations.
Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal. We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.
iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.
Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal.
I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with what I said, as this is not it.
We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.
I said something that is the exact opposite of sitting around, actually. Do your best to read a little more carefully before sharing opinions.
iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.
And?
Keep on arguing on the interwebs.
Maybe someone will notice.
Maybe.
Do you think you’re doing something else?
“All classes working together” as a counterpoint to socialism? Where have I heard of this before…?
It’s because it’s impossible. The classes will always be in conflict until the communism is reached, so it depends which class is in power.
Whats funnier is that when you count how many times Homer went to the hospital… unless if lives in a « socialist » country… he would be homeless
Maybe that’s why Lisa is spreading socialist propaganda. Bc her family directly benefits from it
Wait, isn’t socialism all about class solidarity? “Working together regardless of class to fight a common enemy” sounds more like nationalism where at the end the upper class profits most. Unless we are talking about a classless society but that’s not “regardless of class” but “with no class distinction” which sounds very similar when I think about it.
Yes, you’re correct here. Class collaborationism is a Social Democratic tendency, not a Socialist one.
Socialism is about the government playing a central role in the economy to ensure wealth and resources are distributed more fairly, rather than being concentrated in the hands of corporations or individuals. Socialism can still allow for private businesses and a market economy, but key industries and services are often publicly controlled to prevent excessive inequality.
That’s state socialism, a specific kind of socialism that wants to keep the state apparatus, not realizing that it will always (re)create a ruling class. Different from Libertarian Socialism which unironically want a stateless society, not as a never to reach end goal.
How would society handle critical functions such as water sanitation for millions of people without a state to enforce equitable share of the cost?
With a world wide net of councils, all connected but not centralized
This retains class, though. If your councils only have ownership of their own jurisdictions, then the members of each council are Petite Bourgeoisie. Marx specifically advocated for full centralization because chiefly it becomes a necessity anyways with increasingly complex production, but also because it gives more democratic control over the whole of the economy, not just individual bits.
So we have a factory council open to all workers in the factory to make decisions and send revocable delegates to the city council where they talk to the delegates of farmer councils, consumer councils, … If the factory council makes unfair decisions (and I assume you mean all the workers in the factory belong to the petite bourgeois since they all can attend the council), the consumer council can take collective action to counter it.
So who is the ruling class? Certainly not the bureaucracy as in liberal and bolshevik states since it doesn’t exist here. Or is it the city council? They are revocable, not elected for a given period. Like the soviets before the Bolsheviks ruined everything.
First off, bureaucracy is not a “class,” the Socialist states like the USSR were controlled by the Proletariat. The formation is described in Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, or you can check this infographic if you prefer:
Anyways, back to your question. In the instance of single-unit factory councils, it isn’t so much as a “ruling class” as it is that these workers have control only within their immediate domain, and no real control outside of it. The Soviet model is different, it laddered upwards and extended equal ownership over all within it.
The Marxist critique of the cooperative model is that trade between these cooperatives will result in the resurgance of Capitalism, not the elimination of class society, as time goes on and some cooperatives swell in power and others fall under their control, without equal ownership between them. Engels elaborates on this in Anti-Dühring. Cooperatives don’t scale without administration, either, which means at that point you may as well extend ownership equally across the whole economy so that it may be democratically controlled by all, even if those more local to an issue have more of a voice.
Now, that doesn’t mean cooperatives are bad, it’s just that they only really serve to play a role of “filling in the cracks” large industry leaves behind, as said large industry should be publicly owned. Cooperatives being small can remain as such, and only make themselves able to be properly folded into the public sector when they grow to include large networks of administration, at which point they have outscaled their original cooperative nature anyways.
Socialism is always about recreating a ruling class: it is to make the working class into the ruling class.
There is no practical alternative to this. Imagine trying the only way: to immediately end class relations. You’ve won the revolution. Your ideological brethren are in power and the Great Workers’ Council is going forward with your plan. How are you going to force people to end class relations? Won’t it require a state? Who is enforcing the end of relations? If someone buys up an extra-big plot of land and starts charging tenants rent, reinventing semi-feudal relations, who is going to stop them? And what are you going to do about the bourgeoisie who still exist, especially those overseas, and are working against you to reopen your country for exploitation?
All of these basic realities require a state. And you cannot simply end all class relations instantaneously, as the wider public will not all agree with you ideologically. Unless you plan extreme forms of oppression for the entire population, you will need to deal with the remnants of various class relations in various forms, engaging, ideally, in a process that will whittle them away. That entire process will be recreating a ruling class, i.e. the working class, to impose this process on the other classes.
“Gramsci shows that one of the main historical concerns of the Catholic Church has been to control the reading and the diffusion of Christianity, blocking the rise and spread of popular, autonomous and base level interpretations and thereby saving the purity of the historic doctrine. […] Many Marxists act the same way. Their biggest worry is the purity of the doctrine. Every time that historical facts challenge the doctrine or show the complexity of the practical operationality of elements of the theory, they deny that these elements are part of the story of Marxist theory and doctrine. This is, for example, what doctrines of betrayal are built on. Every movement that appears to stray a bit from these ‘pure’ models that were created a priori is explained through the concept of betrayal, or is explained as ‘state capitalism.’ Therefore, nothing is socialism and everything is state capitalism. Nothing is socialist transition and everything is state capitalism.” – Jones Manoel, Western Marxism, the fetish for defeat, and Christian culture
Great quote and book!
This isn’t true, unless you have a different conception of what “class” is from Marx and Marxists. The State is the only path to a stateless society, in that the state disappears once all property is publicly owned and planned, and thus the “state” whithers away, leaving government behind.
For Marx, the State is chiefly the instruments of government that reinforce class society, like Private Property Rights, not the entire government.
So the bolshevik state bureaucracy wasn’t a new ruling class giving themselves privileges others didn’t have?
In the Marxist notion of “class,” no, they did not form a class. The State is an extension of the class in power, not a class in and of itself. In the Soviet Union, that class was the Proletariat.
Party members and Soviet officials did have privledges like higher pay, but in the Soviet Union this difference was only about 10 times between the richest and the poorest, unlike the 100s to 1000s or more in Tsarist Russia or the modern Russian Federation.
What if was socialism, but for a nation? What could go wrong? /s
You joke, but this is a real thing, PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
Meanwhile, socialist Norway’s wealth fund could maintain everyone’s standard of living for 400 years if they stopped working right now.
Norway is not socialist in the least
Norway funds its safety nets off of super-exploitation of the Global South, ie Imperialism. It is firmly Capitalist and in no way Socialist, private property is the primary driving aspect of Norway’s economy, the higher standard of living comes from acting as a Landlord in country form.
Norway is a capitalist country. It us an OECD hanger-on to the US-led imperialist world order.
thats not something to boast about, it tells how deeply embedded the nordic socdems are in financial parasitism aka imperialism.
living off interests is parasitism
norway isnt socialist. they just excel at exporting capitalism’s issues to the third world.
In a democratic state, things like universal healthcare are also called “socialized medicine” because it is an example of the people owning the means of production in that particular industry.
That’s why most countries are what we call “mixed economies”, that mix elements of capitalism and socialism.
Norway mixes in a higher ratio of socialism to capitalism than most countries. But they don’t export any more of capitalism’s issues to the third world than other countries. It’s something to emulate, not discredit.
and in a demoratic world norway wouldnt be doing tax-free extrativism in my country (and others’), so that you can pay for your socialized medicine in a capitalist economy, where the money to finance it has to come from the poor. in this case we are your poor.
Social programs are not Socialism. Every economy is a mix of private and public property, that doesn’t make it mixed Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for economies at large, as you cannot remove entities from the context they are in. A worker cooperative is not a “socialist” part of a Capitalist economy, because it exists in the broader Capitalist machine and must use its tools.
What determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is if private property or public property is the primary aspect of a society, and which class has control. In Norway, Private Property is dominant, so Social Programs are used to support that.
But in another comment you referred to the USSR as “the world’s first socialist state”, yet it existed in the broader global capitalist machine. You have contradicted yourself. Which is it? Can socialism exist in a world with capitalism, or not?
Socialism can, Communism cannot. Socialism is a gradual process towards Communism. A worker cooperative does not endanger the Capitalist system nor move agaInst it, but Socialist countries and economies working towards Communism do.
Communism, however, must be global.
Socialism is a gradual process towards Communism.
This was the lie that Lenin told the Soviet to quell their questions about “why aren’t we doing any of the things Marx said we have to do?”
Marx used socialism and communism as synonyms.
A worker cooperative does not endanger the Capitalist system nor move agaInst it,
You sure about that? A bunch of people choosing to not give money to capitalists “does not endanger the capitalist system”? Think about that.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks did follow the general process Marx described, though. Can you elaborate on what you mean, here? Further, Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably, but referred to Communism in stages, such as Lower-Stage Communism and Upper-Stage Communism. Lenin simplified this to Socialism and Communism, and over time we have come to understand that we can go further and break these up into even more stages.
Marx wasn’t around for the establishment of Socialism, his analysis was focused on Capitalism and how we may overcome it, not a prophetic view for how society must work. This isn’t a knock on Marx, rather, by contextualizing his ideas we can avoid dogmatism.
As for cooperatives in a Capitalist system, no, not really. What you are describing is Utopianism, ie the idea that you can think of an ideal society and adopt it directly. The data surrounding cooperatives don’t appear to indicate any danger to large firms and other Capitalist entities dominating markets.
That’s why most countries are what we call “mixed economies”, that mix elements of capitalism and socialism.
No. They are capitalist.
🫡
I’m not sure how that link is supposed to refute anything? It says basically what the comment above says without using the phrase “mixed economies”.
If you meant the power structure and public/private balance is heavily capitalist for Nordic countries then you’d probably want to post something else supporting that statement.
Hey, I’m the author of that post! I don’t see how my post says the same thing at all, it very much talks about which aspect, private or public, has power in society is what determines the nature of its economy.
By that logic, socialism cannot exist until the entire planet is socialist.
Close. Communism cannot exist until the entire planet is Socialist, but Socialism can be determined at a country level.
This seems needlessly arbitrary and reductive. Socialism exists all around us, it isn’t defined by a country’s borders.
I don’t know what this means, Socialism is not a gas.
Socialism in america only exists for corporations. “Hey bankers! Screwed up again? Here’s more money to play with.”
I appreciate the sentiment, but the public sector supporting the private is not “socialism.” Socialism describes an economic formation where public ownership is primary in an economy, ie where large firms are publicly owned and controlled. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist just like an arm cannot be a human, it can only exist in the context of the whole.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
Original commenter: jokes in class solidarity
Response: « I appreciate the attempt, but what you said was wrong on sooooo many levels, in this essay, I will… »
There is legitimately a problem with miscommunication on the Left, getting on the same page helps information flow more effectively.
I understand what you mean, really. I just think the methods of circulating that info can sometimes seem or feel ecclesiastic.
In my opinion, context and rhetoric matter. That’s why I joked a little. But I don’t mean no harm, truly. And I appreciate what you do.
That’s of course a fair point, and I did laugh, I am extremely guilty of “essay posting” and try to minimize that when I can while still getting my point across. And I appreciate the compliments, too! Right now there is a big influx of new users from Reddit, so I’m being more of a stickler than usual as in my experience this legitimately does have an impact on the broader stances on Lemmy, given its size.
I see ! Thank you for that :)
No problem! Have a good one! 🫡
The USA actually spends several billions, if not trillions on Medicare (meant for the old) and Medicaid (meant for the poor, and single mothers, and young children) combined.
In 2023, the federal government spent about $848.2 billion on Medicare, accounting for 14% of total federal spending.
source - and that’s just Medicare.
I agree with you that it’s weird that corporations get a bailout, instead of selling the company to competitors, but no need to act like the USA doesn’t spend a TON of money on its citizens, keeping their head above water :)
SpenT
Don’t make me laugh, it’s not socialism! it’s bro-ism, 'cause, I got you bro. If everyone got their bros and we all bros then we can do absolutely anything bro!
Unfortunately, socialism discourages and eventually kills off broism.
You don’t get, socialism doesn’t exist, it can’t hurt you, it was just a boogeyman created by the billionaires so you’ll go back to the wagie cage. There’s only bro-ism
I live in a post soviet country so I experience the impact of socialism to this very day. It’s appalling.
You experience our destruction, we stole the world from you are we’re coming for seconds. Let us in more, let us finacialze you, your dreams will have advertising in them, we will strip whatever is left of your public transporter for copper, we will put your nana in the streets after converting her house into empty condos and stealing her pension. This is what happens when you let to imperial powers come in and loot your dwellings.
😨 …
Fuck pensions btw, pensions are communist shit and should be abolished.
That just means your pension plan is a deer slug
What about anarchism?
Anarchism is preferable to Capitalism, of course, but as a former Anarchist I find Marxist theory and historical practice to be more evidently effective.
