Cowbee [he/they]

It feels like that too

Revolutionary optimism. Realistically, does falling to despair hurt or help revolutionary cause? Historically, doomerism has been a tool of the bourgeoisie to suppress activism. Why agitate for the climate if we can only mitigate the coming impact, not prevent it? Why fight for socialism if it will result in imperialist aggression? There’s a very deliberate movement to suppress revolutionary fervor on the left, longing for the old USSR instead of looking to the future, etc, and the counter is revolutionary optimism.

What we are seeing right now is the undeniable advancement of the socialist cause worldwide, alongside the downfall of imperialism. The PRC is successfully charting a new course, and the global south is breaking free of the shackles placed on it by the west. Every day, there’s new scientific advancement, new revolutionary advances, all if you seek it out. The western media has to run on doomscrolling and only showing you the worst.

Don’t be unrealistic, of course, temper expectations and be resolutely optimistic.

In what way? In general, cooperative ownership is “nicer” than capitalist ownership, but is incompatible with more developed stages of socialism, where production and distribution is collectivized. In general, I’m more supportive of public education, especially in socialism.

The complete and total withering of the state must be global, yes, and can only truly exist once the basis of class and thus the state is no more. However, any socialist state that exists, exists to collectivize all property eventually and thus eliminate the basis of the state and class, and thus this process already is present from the outset. This is economically compelled by centralization and building up the productive forces.

The process of withering, ie the basis of a state that cannot help but wither, is there from the start. A socialist state intent on collectivizing all of production and distribution, and eradicate all class, is already eroding the basis of the state.

Very wholesome outcome!

deleted by creator

Try not to reveal where you’re from, what you do, how old you are, and what organizations you may be a part of. It’s important to determine your risk tolerance and threat model, I’m fine with saying I’m a Statesian but not what state I live in, where I’m going, what I do for work, etc.

People have come in and stalked us, but as long as you have good OPSEC you should be fine. If your position is giving you worry, then I recommend anonymizing yourself as much as possible.

No problem!

Marxists do not disregard the role of great individuals on history. What Marxists disregard is the notion that history was arrested, so to speak, waiting for the great movers of history to propel it forward by being born great and having the innate correct ideas to push it so. The Marxist answer is that it isn’t ideas beamed into people’s heads from nothingness that drive history, but ready-made, constanrly evolving material conditions that shape and influence how we understand the world and the ideas we have.

Vanguards are not “elites.” In general, in any class, there are the more politically advanced, the less politically advanced, and the median. The vanguard is the solidified, organized section of the politically advanced of the revolutionary class. This organization allows the working class to rally around a spearpoint and press forward with its mass. Revolution without a spearpoint cannot be successful, nor can revolution be without mass support.

The reason for this outlook is dialectical and historical materialism, as opposed to liberal idealism. Marx advanced Hegel’s dialectical idealism, which was the most advanced way of interpreting the world pre-Marx, and was able to turn it right-side-up, creating dialectical materialism. This outlook, when applied to history, becomes historical materialism. History becomes the movement of material processes, economic movements, technological progressions, and class struggle. Capitalism did not come into existence because someone thought of liberalism, but gradually grew from small owners of capital moving from simple reproduction into reproduction on an expanded scale, then into winning conflict against the feudal lords, thanks to advents such as the steam engine.

Returning to your question, we disregard the idea of elites as the prime movers. Instead, material forces, class struggle, technological movements, economic forces, the whole of how we produce and distribute and the impacts of that mode of production are the drivers of history.

Hope that makes sense! If you want to read more, I made an introductory ML reading list! Feel free to check it out.

The extent depends on the existing level of development. If there is already a large and developed industrial base, then it may make more sense to go with a more heavily planned economy than one that also implements market forces. Further, it wasn’t strictly necessary in China’s case, merely the correct choice to make in the given circumstances, but certainly not a hard requirement. The DPRK grew 3.7% last year as estimated by the ROK despite being overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, and under intense sanctions. Moreover, even under Mao and later the Gang of Four, there were still markets and private property. Economic growth and development was still positive pre-Deng, just unstable:

You’ll find that those of us on Lemmygrad are generally supportive of Deng Xiaoping, Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, and Reform and Opening Up. Deng Xiaoping Theory correctly applied Marxism-Leninism to the conditions of China, and as such appears to have paid off extremely well. I would say this was the correct course of action, as would most here.

Secondly, I think it’s important to understand that all economies are mixed forms of ownership, with the exception of tribal communalism and eventually late-stage communism. Even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason. Socialism is not defined by its purity, but just like all other modes of production, by its principle aspect. In the PRC, public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, while diverse forms of ownership exist in the medium and small firms, such as private, joint-stock, cooperative, and sole-proprietorships. By controlling the key industries and large firms, the CPC and the working class as a whole has the real power in the economy, the one who controls the rubber controls the rubber ball factory.

Over time, this form of ownership changes. Public ownership becomes economically compelled as firms grow in scale, and class conflict rises. Not everyone will chart the same course China has, because not everyone will come from the same semi-feudal, post-colonial background. The west will have a very different approach, most likely, as will countries in South America and Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. This is why the CPC calls their model “Socialism With Chinese Characteristics,” in anticipation of “Socialism With Mexican Characteristics,” “Socialism With Kenyan Characteristics,” etc.

One final thing, I recommend looking at Cheng Enfu’s model of the “stages of socialism.” This best helps contextualize the course China is taking, and where they are at in this course. The PRC is currently in the “primary stage” of socialism, which is why they have the structure they presently do. Over time, they are developing more and more, allowing them to advance to higher stages of socialism.

By becoming an alternative to the US Empire, the PRC is positioning itself to better help those that also cross the river and join their comrades in building socialism without fear of being isolated. China is playing a major role in fighting imperialism through multilateral development, which is essential at this point in time for the global south to be liberated from the global north.

Hope this helps!

My favorite obscure communist theory is that Engels created Max Stirner as a pseudonym for Marx to get mad at, lol

Can absolutely second Elementary Principles of Philosophy, it’s the first work that really made dialectical materialism “click” for me! Even put it in my intro ML reading list for it. I linked an .epub in case you’d rather use an eReader, from a site maintained by a comrade.

It would be so funny to have Lenin’s bust directly watching me as I sleep, lmao

Hexbear fell back to chapo.chat for a period. Others could view old Hexbear posts, but federation broke until it was resolved. The domain is fixed and Hexbear is federated again.

Hexbear.net as a domain expired without paying to renew it, though this was resolved and Hexbear is back online.

Agitational propaganda. Essentially where communists will assert our views and argue against the failures of capitalism and imperialism. I personally do it by identifying radicalized liberals and try to gently introduce them to Marxist concepts, use Lemmy.ml’s communism community to host my introductory ML reading list, and try to debunk and riposte anti-communist arguments, defend AES from uncritical slander, etc.

That’s amazing, learned something new!

dbzer0 and SJW I believe are defederated from us as well. Hex is federated with dbzer0 due to the anarchist overlap, but defederated from the SJW, .world, and blahaj. Lemmy.ml is federated with nearly everything, which is why I use it for agitprop.