Anti-Leninists, what is something you'd like to tell tankies that we actually never heard?
-
A special kind of democracy where the leaders aren't elected huh? You have simultaneously redefined the word democracy and practiced doublethink
Unlike in bourgeois democracies, which are really bourgeois oligarchies, representatives in in China actually are elected by the proletariat instead of pre-selected by the bourgeoisie, and it shows.
- Most in China Call Their Nation A Democracy, Most in U.S. Say America Isn't
- Long-term survey reveals Chinese government satisfaction
- Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says [UN] Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
- China’s Energy Use Per Person Surpasses Europe’s for First Time
- At 54, China’s average retirement age is too low
- China overtakes U.S. for healthy lifespan: WHO data
- Chinese Scientists Are Leaving the United States [for China]
-
Your idea is that... any politics with roots in the 20th century are irrelevant?
When exactly did everyone on the planet wake up and decide history doesn't matter?
-
We have China
-
Your idea is that... any politics with roots in the 20th century are irrelevant?
When exactly did everyone on the planet wake up and decide history doesn't matter?
History does matter. In the same way mass parties wouldn't have worked in 15th century Europe, they won't work now. Learning history is useful to understand how entire system of thought and action survived way past their relevance, doomed and incapable of understanding their own demise.
-
We have China
Have you ever spoken with an urban young mainlander? They are the most individualistic people on Earth. Beats any gun-bearing Texan everyday.
-
French communist party
What does that mean? The PCF is pretty much a dying party with basically no relevance.
-
Have you ever spoken with an urban young mainlander? They are the most individualistic people on Earth. Beats any gun-bearing Texan everyday.
you have personal bias imo
-
Tankie is a broad term. Are u just an idealist commie or do u legitimately support genocidal regimes?
I would like you to look into the commonalities in teaching methods between your beliefs/community, religion, neo Nazis, and ideological indoctrination in general. Look at the classic applications such as redefining meanings of words, the complete denial of descenting opinions simply because they are descenting, the belief in something greater than oneself etc etc.
I would like you to write down your most fundamental beliefs then right down your best argument for those beliefs then I want you to write you best argument to disprove that belief.
I would like you to come up with as many contradictions within your own ideology as possible without rationalising that contradictory belief to yourself.
I'd like u to read nineteen eighty four and then write an argument how the practice's of big brother have been used to indoctrinate you. Then right an argument against that argument.
I'm not here to tell you how to live or what to think I'd just like you to legitimately challenge your own thoughts to the best of your ability.
Good luck on your journey to becoming a free thinker.
Tankie is a broad term. Are u just an idealist commie or do u legitimately support genocidal regimes?
incredibly good faith way to start this conversation off, very nice
-
I won't downvote anything
Marx never said centrally plan the economy.
-
Lenin was a mushroom
-
History does matter. In the same way mass parties wouldn't have worked in 15th century Europe, they won't work now. Learning history is useful to understand how entire system of thought and action survived way past their relevance, doomed and incapable of understanding their own demise.
How are you defining mass parties?
When did they stop working, and why?
-
How are you defining mass parties?
When did they stop working, and why?
Both questions would deserve a book each to really answer, but I will try.
How are you defining mass parties?
Relatively large participatory base, strategy decided democratically, presence on the local territory and ties with communities. Here though I was more framing them as "parties designed for a mass society", where their strategy relies on the possibility to reduce the individual to mass, as in the case of workers parties. A one-size-fits-all organization, where one strategy, one identity and one theory of change is shared by millions of people.When did they stop working, and why?
There are at least two big elements: the first is the end of mass society. Once we became all individuals, the mechanism of identification in a collective entity became harder. It got even harder over time, when most young people have no examples or memory of anybody around them ever acting collectively.
The second element is informational: mass parties are incredibly slow. The analysis-synthesis-action-assessment most ML parties are based on is predicated on the assumption that the social and political phenomena you're working with don't change too fast and between the analysis phase and the action phase, the underlying phenomenon is relatively stable. If the analysis is too slow or the phenomenon (i.e. specific industries, specific political landscapes, etc etc) change too fast, your analysis is always late. Correct, but useless. This renders anybody involved in such ecosystems (not just mass parties), very aware of the motivations of their own failure, but completely incapable of escaping them.
-
Lennin's "state and revolution" and accepting China as a communist country are in conflict with each other. Most tankies or "Marxist-Lenninist" are distorting both Marx and Lennin. Communism in one country can not exists for long without a global overthrow of the capitalist class. Yes, the state in these various countries control the economy more or less, but who controls the state? My assertion, and most other Trotskyists, is that its not the workers.
I have never seen a Trotskyist on Lemmy before now.
-
Marx never said centrally plan the economy.
True, but we know that one. He also never had a plan to achieve communism either. The devil's in the details of HOW we get there.
-
True, but we know that one. He also never had a plan to achieve communism either. The devil's in the details of HOW we get there.
How about this one to make Leninists mad: Marx and Engels said ad nauseum for 40 years that the democratic republic is the political form in which the class struggle can be fought and won.
-
Marx never said centrally plan the economy.
In Critique of the Gotha Programme:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another.
Such a system requires centralized planning, Marx's entire reason for predicting Socialism to overtake Capitalism came from Marx's analysis of Capitalism's centralizing factor. As industry gets more complex, it grows, until everything is owned in common after revolution and gradual expropriation from Capitalists.
-
How about this one to make Leninists mad: Marx and Engels said ad nauseum for 40 years that the democratic republic is the political form in which the class struggle can be fought and won.
Are you meaning that Marx and Engels were reformist? That's frankly wrong, Marx and Engels were thoroughly revolutionary, and this has been proven correct in practice as revolution has been the only successful way to implement Socialism thus far.
-
Lennin's "state and revolution" and accepting China as a communist country are in conflict with each other. Most tankies or "Marxist-Lenninist" are distorting both Marx and Lennin. Communism in one country can not exists for long without a global overthrow of the capitalist class. Yes, the state in these various countries control the economy more or less, but who controls the state? My assertion, and most other Trotskyists, is that its not the workers.
Socialism in one country is certainly possible, Communism must be global. This has always been the case, and historical practice affirms this. The Trotskyist assertion needs to actually be backed by analysis, in the time of Trotsky support for Permanent Revolution came because of a lack of faith in the Peasantry, such issues are not the same in the PRC and moreover the Peasantry has been shown to authentically align with the Proletariat.
-
In Critique of the Gotha Programme:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another.
Such a system requires centralized planning, Marx's entire reason for predicting Socialism to overtake Capitalism came from Marx's analysis of Capitalism's centralizing factor. As industry gets more complex, it grows, until everything is owned in common after revolution and gradual expropriation from Capitalists.
The long quote is about the Principle of Equivalence, not about central planning.
You present a case for Principle of Equivalence, and declare "therefore central planning!" Your conclusion doesn't follow from your line of reasoning.
