Semjeza comments on We dont do those things

Late Stage Capitalism

3,773 readers

4,606 active

183 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.

Introduction to Socialism (external links)

Wiki

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course

Audiobooks Read by Dessalines

founded 2 years ago

moderators

[–] Semjeza@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

That user is suggesting that the Party administration, by virtue of controlling the means of production was definitionally not proletariat, but in fact the most concentrated group of bourgeois administrators.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

the Party administration, by virtue of controlling the means of production

Before the Russian Civil War was even over? An incredible feat of administrative enginuity.

the most concentrated group of bourgeois administrators

The Soviet Bureaucracy was 5.4M people strong by 1920. Even assuming you dismiss the existence of Communes as autonomous self-governing bodies, that's 4% of the total population.

This is what we're describing as highly concentrated bourgeois wealth?

And we're comparing it to King George V who - as a singular person - controlled 37% of the entire national economy through his titles, lands, and equity in various British conglomerates?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Semjeza@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago

No, it's what that commentator was. I'd also assume they meant post-Red Vs. White wars...

I don't know enough about the facts of Soviet Russia, so I'm just soaking up info (I will engage personally more when China or Britain are topics), the 5.4 million bureaucracy by 1920 is a nice statistic.

(You are, of course, comparing Apples to Oranges. How much of the economy the wealthiest person controls doesn't compare in a meaningful way to number of administrators (and also, obviously Imperial Britain was much less equal than the USSR. One would hope that any region post a communist revolution would be more equal and an empire.)

I just hoped to end a communications issue, and thus learn more.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent