tiredturtle

There is no flip-flopping. AES does not align with the Marxist principles.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'm not arguing. The American Way is already how the ruling class stifles the people

The claim that the comment "is slop" might overlook socialism and the role of education in class struggle. According to Marxism, socialism is about dismantling class structures and empowering the working class to control production and governance. Education under socialism should awaken revolutionary consciousness, not simply train workers to serve the system.

Marx warned that the ruling class controls both production and ideas to maintain power. A true socialist education system would encourage people to challenge these structures, not support them.

Educated people won't stay obedient. That's why reactionary powers historically avoid aiming for truly educated masses—they prefer a controlled education system that reinforces their ideology, not one that fosters critical thinking or revolutionary action.

China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote? True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures, but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.

As Marxist theory teaches us, the ruling class controls not just the means of production but also the means of ideas. The flex here is not in building 'education power,' but in demonstrating the capacity to shape minds for the future workforce, ensuring stability within their system of production and governance. In this context, the plan isn't just about making smarter citizens; it’s about making a more compliant society under the guise of progress.

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.

Yeah who knows. As of now things look like a PR stunt

A solid theory to explain how platforms align with state interests, exemplifying how state-capitalist powers weaponize media as tools of soft power, subordinating them to geopolitical and ideological agendas.