Interested in Marxism-Leninism? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
-3 points (49.0% liked)
Memes
51435 readers
1122 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh yeah the leaders who caused untold destruction on their own people and started authoritarian regimes... Totally the same
Yes they did, and many people died from it, for some reason poeple don't understand how horrible communism is
Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.
Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.
Critique those regimes, which shouldn't be conflated with the original ideals of communism as a philosophy for human equality. The horrible ones were against communists.
This isn't contemporary analysis, it's fringe among Marxists to say the least. The idea that all.AES states were betrayals of Marxism is a viewpoint nearly exclusive to Orthodox Marxism, itself a dogmatic distortion of Marxism, which is theoretically false and has produced no pracyical results, and is extremely western. You provide no background for suggesting AES leaders "distorted Marxism" nor examples of how. This is harmful and doesn't say anything, if you consider yourself a Marxist I would recommend following the Marxist principle of "no investigation, no right to speak."
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.
Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.
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.
How did they contradict "worker control and class abolition?" AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.
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?
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?
How are workers "excluded from meaningful control?" Again, you don't say anything about how or why.
I need to see some examples of "crushing independent unions and dissent." What unions, and what dissent?
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.
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.
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.
You're drawing a line between workers and party members without backing that in class analysis. The Party is made up of workers, the most politically advanced among them. Marx did not advocate for direct democracy at every level, the form of Democracy in AES is Proletarian Democracy.
What do you mean by "independent unions" being suppressed? Solidarity with what in Poland was suppressed? What is the real force being suppressed here, and is it in the interests of the working class or against it?
Back to the "Elite" argument. What do you believe the "Administration of Things" looks like? Planners and government offiicals are not distinct classes, just like in a business the middle managers are not a class distinct from the Workers. Classes are based on ownership and power, by all historical analysis the Class in power in AES is the Proletariat.
Again, you repeat yourself with respect to the purges and cultural revolution. How did they stifle worker ability to shape society? You aren't doing analysis here, just repeating a thesis you still need to prove.
The reason you should fall under some degree of label is because Marxists believe theory must be tested by practice. Those who don't belong to an org and don't adopt a label that can at least mostly be applied to themselves serve as extremely out of touch with the rest of Marxists, who daily discuss and work to come to a better understanding of theory and practice.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, for example, and think your outright rejection of Lenin to be a dogmatic error. Is there a label you mostly fit under?
Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.
Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state's control, aiming to protect workers' interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.
Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers themselves but with the system that centralizes control rather than allowing workers direct control over their labor.
The purges and Cultural Revolution were significant in stifling workers' ability to shape society, as they involved the suppression of dissent and independent thought. These events were not just about removing political enemies, but about curbing the voices of those advocating for a more democratic and worker-controlled system. Marx envisioned socialism as a society in which workers could actively shape their own futures, not one dominated by a centralized authority.
Labels like Marxist-Leninist help unify political efforts, but they should not limit critical thinking or prevent independent analysis. To some labels provide clarity and structure, and there are also we adapting to changing conditions avoiding rigid dogmatism.
No, Marx did not focus on workers managing their own workplaces. This stands in stark contrast with Marx's conception of the whole of society owning and planning production collectively. You are describing a more Anarchist configuration of society than Marxist. Workers having control of the Means of Production was never meant to be focused on local levels, but broad, societal scales, and while democratic input is necessary, moving beyond the anarchy of production was a requirement.
Solidarity was a US-backed anti-Socialist movement. It worked against the working class and for the petite bourgeoisie.
Planners are not a separate class. Class is not based on hierarchy, but ownership. You are speaking as an Anarchist, not a Marxist. The Marxian basis of class analysis is based on ownership, not simple "power," otherwise managers would be a separate class. Read Critique of the Gotha Programme and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific if you want to learn more about how Marx and Engels envisioned Socialism and Communism as economically planned.
As for purges and the cultural revolution, liberalism and fascism were oppressed, as well as those seeking to move from a Socialist system collectively owned and planned to a more petite bourgeois mode of production based on councils. Anti-Dühring shows Engels going against such a systen, as it isn't really based on Marxist class analysis. This isn't giving workers more control, it's removing the ability of workers to have an input on the broader economy in favor of increasing local input, which goes against Communism as collective and equal ownership over all of production.
The problems thus far are fairly apparent, you appear to be ascribing anarchist principles to Marx and as such see actually existing Marxist ideas as "betrayals" of such an anarchist ideal.
Marx’s vision focused on collective ownership and planning by society as a whole, not local control by individual workplaces. Workers should manage production collectively, as a class, not in isolated units, which is more in line with anarchism.
Solidarity was a workers' movement, and its contradictions and external influences didn’t change its core goal of improving worker conditions.
Planners don't create a new class as long as they serve collective ownership. Marx’s focus was on ensuring collective control, not creating a separate managerial class.
The purges and Cultural Revolution on paper aimed at suppressing reactionary forces, but sometimes limited workers’ ability to influence the economy. Protecting socialism doesn't come at the expense of worker participation.
Marxism supports centralized planning by the working class, while anarchism favors local autonomy. Marx's approach is about centralizing control for equality, not decentralizing into smaller units.
Cool, so now your stance is largely flip-flopping and AES is Socialist, glad we are in agreement finally.
There is no flip-flopping. AES does not align with the Marxist principles.
Solidarity was a Capitalist-backed anti-Socialist movement, just because workers participated didn't make it in the interests of the workers.
Planners in AES serve collective ownership, I already gave you a couple books to read on to show this is the case. You can continue to assert the opposite, and you'll continue to be wrong.
More than anything, your definition of Socialism appears to be "executes Marxist principles perfectly and without flaw," which is dogmatism and anti-Materialist. This is the biggest error, and why in your eyes Socialism will likely never exist. The thing is, Marx himself would laugh at that notion.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. "State Capitalism" refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn't democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that "true" socialism doesn't have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of "Marxism" has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while AES states stand as clear examples of working class victories.
You draw hard lines where they don't exist. You failed to explain how the Soviet Democratic model stands in contrast to Marx and Engels in any material way, just vague assertions otherwise.
Overall, critique is important, but more than for criticism itself. Critique is important if correctly applied to what worked and what did not, and is only further useful if it is actionable. It appears your critique is for the sake of critique, which explains the lack of any common agreements with other Marxists and the apparent lack of org affiliation.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Sometimes, considering a broader perspective rather than adhering to a rigid viewpoint, even when it feels like it has all the answers you're looking for, can help break free from those cognitive dissonance patterns.
Good night.
You're doing that thing again where you provide no evidence for this "beaurocratic class" existing as a class, and refuse to read evidence to the contrary. Moreover, having upper level officials within the Proletariat, as AES has, is not an issue, but a requirement for large industry as Engels already espoused.
Please do some genuine consideration for why your views might be considered extremely fringe among Marxists globally, to not do so is to assert that your opinion is superior to that of hundreds of millions of working Marxists that build Socialism in the real world.
This person keeps coming back to waste our time, it seems. Previously. Previously.
Yep, seems very silly.