this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
915 points (94.3% liked)

Lefty Memes

4528 readers
1115 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes

That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such

That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
915
Simple, really (jlai.lu)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
333 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] trashgirlfriend 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What sepparates any form of Marxism from "state capitalism," in your eyes? Marx was an advocate for central planning.

Marx was also an advocate of worker ownership of the MoP, not state ownership.

The state owning and using force to control the MoP just recreates capitalist class dynamics.

I am not a fan of central planning personally, but you can have a centrally planned economy that is not state capitalist, as long as the planning committees are actually made up of workers and delegates chosen by the workers.

Immediately after the revolution, the existing workers and factory councils were either destroyed or coopted by the party.

Secondly, please describe how the CPSU competed against each other in Markets for the purpose of Capital accumulation into their own pockets, and explain why wealth disparity greatly decreased during the USSR and increased after it's dissolution.

I have honestly no idea what strawman you are trying to beat up here.

I never said anything about internal competition, I was talking about state capitalism as a system that perpetuates capitalist class structure with the state and agents of the state replacing the bourgeoisie.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Marx was also an advocate of worker ownership of the MoP, not state ownership.

Marx's State specifically referred to the elements of government that enforce class dynamics, like Private Property Rights. Marx was fully in favor of government, just not the State.

The state owning and using force to control the MoP just recreates capitalist class dynamics.

In what manner? If you eliminate market competition, Capital accumulation, and the necessity for profit, then you have fundamentally moved beyond Capitalism. The CPSU did not compete against each other and pocket vast amounts of profits, and the Soviets were run democratically. It's fundamentally and entirely different.

I am not a fan of central planning personally, but you can have a centrally planned economy that is not state capitalist, as long as the planning committees are actually made up of workers and delegates chosen by the workers.

So then the USSR was Socialist, after all. The Soviet Union was based on Soviet Democracy, worker councils with elected delegates. There was corruption, and there were inner-power conflicts, but the structure overall was Socialist.

Immediately after the revolution, the existing workers and factory councils were either destroyed or coopted by the party.

The Soviets never went away.

I have honestly no idea what strawman you are trying to beat up here.

I never said anything about internal competition, I was talking about state capitalism as a system that perpetuates capitalist class structure with the state and agents of the state replacing the bourgeoisie.

There's no strawman here, you claimed that the agents of the state functioned as the bourgeoisie, and I asked how they replicated the functions of the bourgeoise, the necessary components of which include competition and production for individual profit. The lack of those means it cannot be considered Capitalist.

I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, it might help you get a clearer understanding of the transition to Communism in Marx's own words.

Additionally, I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the successes and failures of the USSR, and its place in Socialist history.

[–] trashgirlfriend 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Marx's State specifically referred to the elements of government that enforce class dynamics, like Private Property Rights. Marx was fully in favor of government, just not the State.

You're shadowboxxing again, I never mentioned the state/government distinction.

Completely pointless either way since the USSR was not state abolitionist.

In what manner? If you eliminate market competition, Capital accumulation, and the necessity for profit, then you have fundamentally moved beyond Capitalism. The CPSU did not compete against each other and pocket vast amounts of profits, and the Soviets were run democratically. It's fundamentally and entirely different

Because competition isn't what creates class disparity, the problem is the ownership and control part, which was entirely reserved for members of the party.

Because the party, which was controlled from the top down had complete economic and political control over the system, it essentially just replaced the ruling class of old.

Yes, the competition was mostly removed but the class structure stayed basically the same.

So then the USSR was Socialist, after all. The Soviet Union was based on Soviet Democracy, worker councils with elected delegates. There was corruption, and there were inner-power conflicts, but the structure overall was Socialist.

The Soviets never went away.

But there was no worker control of these institutions, they were entirely controlled from the top down by party officials.

If there were elections they were a sham, basically nothing else than virtue signaling to the values the communist party supposedly had but in practice despised.

There's no strawman here, you claimed that the agents of the state functioned as the bourgeoisie, and I asked how they replicated the functions of the bourgeoise, the necessary components of which include competition and production for individual profit. The lack of those means it cannot be considered Capitalist.

I don't need to reply to this for the 759th time.

I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, it might help you get a clearer understanding of the transition to Communism in Marx's own words

MLs flipping a coin on if they should tell someone to read Critique of the Gotha Programme or On Authority today.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're shadowboxxing again, I never mentioned the state/government distinction.

Completely pointless either way since the USSR was not state abolitionist.

What structural aspects of the USSR differed from what Marx advocated for?

Because competition isn't what creates class disparity, the problem is the ownership and control part, which was entirely reserved for members of the party.

Incorrect. Competition is key to accmulation and production for profit along Capitalist lines. Ownership was done via government, yes, and was participated in by the public. The Party was the group that largely ran the government, but you could join it if you wished.

If there were elections they were a sham, basically nothing else than virtue signaling to the values the communist party supposedly had but in practice despised.

There were elections. I would like justification for your claim that they were a sham.

MLs flipping a coin on if they should tell someone to read Critique of the Gotha Programme or On Authority today.

Marxists suggest reading Marx and Engels, shocker.

[–] trashgirlfriend -1 points 4 months ago

You can't get off the dialogue tree man.