I am outside and there’s no hate. I support the people everywhere.
What is the purpose of attacking with fabrications which don’t match the modlog (context for the people’s court) or the screenshot?
Show it and I’m happy to correct any harmful behavior! :)
Shared to an IM group from somewhere and reshared here. What I understood is it seems to be pretty open when asked how it comes to its answers
It’s a good idea and countries started that with Russia though it’s still continuing. USA would just follow that model
Democracy is demagogue-prone. That’s a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are easy to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythms, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity.
The practice can always be detected by anyone who learns the signs: Repetition. Great attempts to keep your attention on words. You must pay no attention to words. Watch what the person does. That way you learn the motives.
They create a system where most people are dissatisfied, vaguely or deeply. This builds up widespread feelings of vindictive anger. Then they supply targets for that anger as they need them—as distraction. Don’t give time to question.
They bury mistakes in more laws. Traffic in illusion. Bullring tactics. Wave the pretty cape. People will charge it and be confused when there’s no matador behind the thing. That dulls the electorate just as it dulls the bull.
Fewer people use their vote intelligently next time.
There appears to be a rule of nature that says it’s almost impossible for self-serving groups to act enlightened, flowing with the forces of life, adjusting your actions that life may continue. With the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number, of course.
The risks of democracy and how to prevent them paraphrased from Dune.
Apparent everywhere, Trump is just one in this path of centuries.
Focus on actions, not promises, and unite against inequality and division. Systems should be simple, transparent, and work for everyone, not just the wealthy or powerful. Educating and organizing workers, holding leaders accountable, and building solidarity across all groups are essential for achieving fairness. Lasting change comes from addressing root causes, not chasing temporary fixes.
Maybe the next century will show results somewhere.
It would probably only verify that there aren’t really trustworthy governments in the world
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Sometimes, considering a broader perspective rather than adhering to a rigid viewpoint, even when it feels like it has all the answers you’re looking for, can help break free from those cognitive dissonance patterns.
Good night.
Thank you for acknowledging this is going nowhere. As said multiple times, there are no perfection requirements, only an emphasis on aligning with Marxist principles. Beyond that, this has always been just forum posting, not a debate to win.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
The state is supposed to wither away as the working class takes control of production. Engels and Marx argued that the state, under capitalism, is a tool for maintaining class divisions, and this should end in socialism.
Socialism requires large-scale planning, but the key difference is that it must be managed democratically by workers, not a central bureaucracy. Lenin criticized the Soviet bureaucracy because it hindered true worker control.
The USSR state managed the economy without giving workers control. Even after the NEP, the state still controlled production without real worker participation.
For Marx, socialism means the working class collectively controls the economy, which wasn’t realized in the Soviet system. While there were gains, they came from a centralized authority, not workers themselves.
Despite state planning, the Soviet system concentrated power in the hands of a few.
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.
Socialism is direct rule by the working class where the state fades away, as Engels described. A state acting as a proxy concentrates power in a minority and keeps workers from controlling production. Marx argued that the proletariat must destroy the old state machinery, not rely on it to act for them. The Soviet state kept a hierarchical structure that directed workers rather than enabling their control.
Material benefits do not prove workers were in control. Marx warned that state capitalism could produce growth while keeping power out of workers’ hands. Lenin himself criticized the growing Soviet bureaucracy after 1917. By the 1920s, workers’ councils had lost power to the Party and state officials. Gains can exist under exploitation if workers do not democratically run production.
Dialectical analysis means critically studying contradictions in a system. The USSR had contradictions like inequality and bureaucracy, which Marx predicted under state capitalism. Marxism evolves through testing theory against reality, not just following the majority, even when it challenges what many believe as socialism.
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.
Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.
Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.
One of the key aspects of Marxism isn’t just about state control or central planning, it’s about the active involvement of the working class in managing production and society. If a state is controlled by a small elite, even if it calls itself socialist, it risks becoming a form of state capitalism rather than true worker control.
This isn’t about rigid, dogmatic labels which I can’t help but notice in your assumptions of me. What is interesting is understanding material conditions and power structures. Discussing any state, does it give the workers control or whether it serves a centralized elite.
I’m not claiming that any state is “false” without evidence. It’s an examination of how power operates in those states and whether it matches the idea of socialism where workers are in control. Doesn’t Marxist analysis require questioning these things, not simply accepting a label?
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.
In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting “on their behalf.” State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.
As for beliefs, Marx’s critique of religion as “the opiate of the masses” doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.
As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.
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?
I have nothing to argue about. I’ll earnestly fix any mistakes. Honesty can go both ways if you’re willing.