[-] [email protected] 14 points 8 hours ago

Trump responding to lobbying from some of the wealthiest capitalists is a pefectly capitalist thing to do. Capitalism is not "free markets," a system is not capitalist if it has less government influence. The state in capitalism is under the control of capitalists, and plays an integral role in keeping said capitalists in power.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 8 hours ago

Social programs are not socialism. Welfare exists in both capitalist systems and socialist systems, which is why I explained that what determines the system is which form of production is principle, private or public. The US, Norway, Singapore, etc are capitalist, plain and simple. Countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR are examples of socialism.

Again, I think you need to do more reading if you want to actually have a conversation about socialism, capitalism, and communism. If you want, I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, or this crash course on socialism made by Dessalines is good as well.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 8 hours ago

There's no such thing as "pure capitalism" or "pure socialism." Every socialist system has elements of private property, and every capitalist system has elements of public property. A system is capitalist if the large firms and key industries are private, and socialist if the large firms and key industries are public. This is all nonsense on your part, socialist systems have been at the peak of innovation throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

I'm not sure why you brought up a bunch of capitalist countries failing because of issues systemic to capitalism at the end, it didn't really help your point. Moreover, there is no "combining the best of both," the system is determined by what is principle, meaning you can't be both. Furthermore, I think you're alluding to the Nordic Countries, but those are capitalist, deteriorating, and depend on imperialism like the rest of the global north.

I think you should do a bit more reading on what socialism and communism even are to begin with before trying to have discussions about them, same with capitalism.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

Capitalism is a mode of production largely defined as one where private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and commodity production is the main form.

Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect, and is more planned and controlled.

Communism is a post-socialist, global system that is fully collectivized and planned.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Capitalism is not the only mode of production in existence. We can collectivize production and run it in a planned manner. We can't do that all at once, but in socialism we can gradually wrest capital from the capitalists and collectively run and plan the economy.

Edit: responding to your edit, socialism is not "welfare in capitalist systems." Your comment didn't go over anyone's heads, you just don't know what socialism and capitalism are.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago

Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production where all of production has been collectivized globally, the commodity form fully abolished, etc.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 10 hours ago

Well, I appreciate the complement, but I do want to point out that the longer you hold onto the idea that we can vote for a better world in a system designed to keep imperialism running for as long as possible, the longer you'll be walking around with your hands tied doing exactly what the ruling class wants you to do.

Here's an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you ever want to start reading theory.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

No, the large majority understand the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. The Nordics don't call themselves socialist, because they aren't.

Further, socialism is extremely relevant. The PRC is Socialist, and is the world's largest economy and industrial power. Support for collectivizing the economy is growing in the west, even if absolute numbers are still low. Socialism remains the only way to move on.

Revolution did not "kill millions of people," in all major socialist countries life expectancy increased by 50%-100%, infant mortality plumetted, and poverty dramatically reduced. Revolution has proven to be the only way to genuinely democratize the economy and establish socialism, when you try to do that within a liberal capitalist framework like in Chile, you get couped by the US Empire.

You'd do well to join an org like the aforementioned PSL, reading theory and history books are also helpful.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 10 hours ago

They only seek to regulate capital as much as their megacorp and billionaire donors wish. The "Overton Window" has nothing to do with it.

Further, if both parties serve capital, then we have democracy for capital, not for the people.

[-] [email protected] 34 points 20 hours ago

The DNC isn't fighting for workers. They are bringing a gun to the gunfight, they just aren't interested in using it against the GOP, as ultimately both serve capital. The US has never been a democracy for the people.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 21 hours ago

This isn't a centrist meme, it's a leftist meme. Revolution is necessary, neither party represents worker's interests.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 23 hours ago

I said it was tragic that it happened in the first place, and it's horrible that the US took advantage of grievances the public had in order to force violent reaction. I also think it's a good thing that the socialist system remained, millions more lives have been saved and extended thanks to it, regardless if the rioters that burned unarmed officers alive lived to see those lives saved.

Again, though, you're deliberately avoiding having an actual conversation, and are looking to pick fights. I've talked about the June 4th incident before, several times, going over the causes, influences, distortions by the west, etc. A good source is Another View of Tiananmen by Sun Feiyang and Roderic Day.

I'm not going to apologize for being a Leftist, even if you call me pejoratives, lol.

28
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
762
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!

Some significant works:

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The Civil War in France

Wage Labor & Capital

Wages, Price, and Profit

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)

The Poverty of Philosophy

And, of course, Capital Vol I-III

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

325
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

On April 22nd, 1870, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov "Lenin," hero of the Russian Revolution, and architect of the world's first Socialist state, was born. His contributions to the Marxist canon and to the revolutionary theory and practice of the proletariat throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of imperialism, the right of nations to self-determination, and revolutionary strategy have played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He also loved cats!

Some significant works:

What is to be Done?

Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism

The State and Revolution

"Left-Wing" Communism

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

The Tax in Kind

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

25
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Among many who have not engaged with Marxist theory, there can be confusion regarding the determination of systems as Socialist, Capitalist, and so forth. Are markets Capitalism? Is public ownership Socialism? Is a worker cooperative in a Capitalist country a fragment of Socialism? These questions are answered by studying Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and I will attempt to help clarify those questions here.

The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.

Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized. Neither actually allows us to usefully analyze the trajectory of a country and who actually has the power within it.

For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.

For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism. To do so is to add confusion, and the origin of such a desire is from idealists who believe Socialism to be a grand, almost mystical achievement of perfection. The truth is more mundane, and yet because it's more mundane, it's real, and achievable, as it already has been in many countries.

What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.

As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.

Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.

Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation.

Marxism isn't useful because Marx was prophetic, but because he synthesized the ideas built up by his predecessors and armed the working class with valuable tools for understanding their enemy and the methods with which to overcome said enemy.

917
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
267
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

For good fun, here are a few of Lenin's most important contributions to Marxist theory, I highly recommend all of them (but Imperialism especially).

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (must read for any Leftist wanting to understand modern Capitalism, Anarchists included!)

The State and Revolution

"Left-Wing" Communism

130
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Dr. Michael Parenti 1986 Lecture "Yellow Parenti"

Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!

152
Read Feinberg. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
21
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

179
Parenti Hands (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Dr. Michael Parenti 1986 Lecture "Yellow Parenti"

Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!

453
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
248
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next â€ș

Cowbee

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago