you have spoken like a true "communist" ... ??
iriyan
joined 2 years ago
This is a very sad picture you are painting. It is like saying that if someone doesn't know about cars and this is the first time buying you can convince them to buy a Chevy, but if they already know about cars and have had a few they will never buy one. Alternatively if they have a BMW why trade it for a Daewoo?
Is the object of the revolutionary to tell people what they prefer to hear or what it is actually right, scintifically supported that is as a choice?
This mechanism described as a problem:
What is advanced marxism, and how can we bring it to the people over the internet?
Why is or should be a goal? The underlying hypothesis is that the more Marxism more people understand the more the need for class organization will occur, the better the vehicle for change. What if this is wrong? What if it takes so long for people to understand Marxism that by the time they do it is too late to do much about it other than to try to become experts in teaching others the same analytical/critical skills. So we end up with grouchy old people who think they know it all and blame those that know less for the deficits of Marxism as vehicle for change.
What if class organization doesn't need Marxism or Marxists as patriarchal figures to guide the blind and was allowed to form its own vanguardism of class consciousness, digesting the problems of the class and coming up with its own goals and plan?
Is it the chicken and egg dilemma, which comes first? Is it the complexity of Marxism in interpreting 21st century reality that is inhibiting true class mass organization and action? Class consciousness alone, for some people in some parts of the world may result in very reactionary tendencies, such as sexism, racism, nationalism, etc.
One thing is for sure, that if one (individual) wants to become or be a better capitalist he must first study "advanced Marxism" because the stuff actually works.
You mean in the historic documents their ideology is based on or on the actual rhetoric they use now (past 30-50 years) ?
Finally, I thought I was left alone in the universe for a day or two.
I can understand English not being your native language, and it doesn't really matter if one doesn't speak a language well, as long as he/she honestly makes an effort to communicate.
BUT, "imma hop to another distro" is pushing peoples patience a little too much, don't you think?
Gentoo turned to crap ever since they decided to adopt IBM's trojan horse, elogind, and abandon consolekit2 and seatd which are active and adequate alternatives. But IBM must be paying well the heads of some distributions so they can become their little puppets.
If using openshot is the reason to use linux, are you aware it is offered for windows 11 too?
Reducing public land, that is access by poor people to land, increases their dependency for food to markets. This nearly makes revolutionary tendencies become suicidal. You subject yourself to slavery or die starving.
Are you now for the state that mandates people to starve than violate market stability?
I admit I do not follow China's development much, and I also understand not having time to engage too, so I agree to stop, but I had to bring this little detail into it for other readers to understand my perspective as well. Maybe others would be willing to continue this.
You are absolutely right about inheritance, I was referring (in my mind) on the transition period between capitalism and private ownership to socialism and collective/communal property.
The populist anti-communist propaganda has been built around this sensitive issue where "the evil communists will come and take the little property you have away". This has to be clearer and understood better for the enemy not to have grounds to base their propaganda on.
The recent development world wide has had public land (and water/sea) be rebranded state property, and under this state property label it is easier for the masses to digest that instead of raising taxes the state sells off "its assets" as state property. This is a violation of any constitution in robbing human rights from public land/sea and converting it to "real estate" owned by the state, which in turn flips it over to private interests for exploitation at gift like symbolic cost.
So now we are left with all land and all sea be in a way private. They took desserts and converted them to solar panel lots for the industry, which may eventually fail and be converted to casino centers, who knows. They took hills and mountains and handed them over so windmills/generators can be installed, all private enterprise, the management, roads, water supplies, pylons to carry electricity were all placed in mountain areas, forest was wiped out, and the protection of this infrastructure is now enforced by private interests.
The general left had nothing to say about all this, because simply the autism of public land and state property has not yet been theorized upon, and therefore neither have human rights and access to land and water been theorized upon. So it was all ok, because humans are slaves of either capital or the state.
But the propaganda on taking someone's hard earned and constructed cabin, a little lot with vegies fruit and flowers, is private property that will be banned in communism.
This is ideology at the verge of bankruptcy and should either be re-examined or be sentenced to the slow death new-capitalism has sentenced it to.
@Blursty> That maximalist freedom they want includes the freedom to exploit and take away the freedom of others.
You do know that this is by far false, and you must be referring to neo-liberals. The anarchist tradition is of anarcho-communism/syndicalism and libertarian-communism and the perversion some fools describe as anarcho-capitalism (us libertarianism) is not accepted as anarchist by anarchists themselves. In some areas they would even fear of having a physical presence among the rest. So what good is it to base some conclusion on a false premise?
Do you think when Marx was spending time with Kropotkin discussing, playing chess, it was because Kropotkin was defending the freedom to exploit? Go read the consititutions of CNT, of FAI, the Italian Federation, and see whether there is a clear position against ANY exploitation of humans by humans.
Where the weakness of the libertarian proposal lies is that "society" on its own will not find a way to organize against capitalism, or be organized adequately to survive without a state. Society can and will not do such things without a revolutionary vanguard leading it to that direction. Anarchist organization has had to deal with this contradiction where itself becomes the vanguard "over" society or the working class, deciding for the class things like tactics, methods, goals, etc. The relationship between a political organization and society or the working class therefore becomes hierarchical and allows little "freedom" for those outside the organization to decide or even affect the decisions made. So, a revolutionary process becomes one where the vanguard imposes conditions and rules on the working class. The more anarchists try to organize the fewer stay with it as they feel uncomfortable with the contradiction.
In m-l tradition the vanguard is an acceptable and conscious decision to maintain this hierarchy, use the class struggle as a movement to overthrow the government and take over the state. Unfortunately those two branches of radical anti-capitalism can't seem to synthesize any form of collaboration and possibility of coexistence. For historic reasons there is little trust or hope for such cooperation or agreement.
There is a trend (specially after 1950s cointelpro activities) of individualism that can extent all the way to anti-communism, otherwise called insurrectional individualist anarchists, who are also very much against any formal organization as being the source of oppression. Those fools write and write as individuals, appealing to individuals, and formulating individual beliefs that can never escape their lack of organization. Lack of a collective organ to promote their ideas keeps them well in the bottom of movement significance. They have never been able to achieve anything. But you can't characterize 150y+ traditions by some neo-con trends of youth lifestylism.
How would you classify and explain the presence of IWW for two centuries? The presence of CNT in the 1930s Spain's uprising against the invasion of Franco with US and German support?
If there is superiority of m-l over anarchism/libertarian-communism, there must be presented and analyzed on true premises not lies and characterizations empty of content. For the anarchist freedom can not exist without equality, but equality is as political as it is economic. It would be hard to believe that people of "equal" presence in decision making would produce a system of exploitation or oppression, or any other form of inequality. Systems of inequality exist because minorities serving individual interests form organizations to maintain inequality.