According to subcomandante Marcos, "Zapatismo was not Marxist–Leninist, but it was also Marxist–Leninist." To throw out Lenin's influences entirely is dogmatism. It is correct to say that it is its own thing, but in doing so we must acknowledge all of its influences, Lenin included.
Secondly, you make no explanations for how Marxism-Leninism "drops the scientific aspect" of Marxism. You make a blanket claim and make no justification for it. Furthermore, the idea that Marxism-Leninism provides "oligarchs" is also anti-Marxist, as I already proved above the concept of governments with administrators is a core aspect of Marxism, in erasing this factor you erase Marxism.
Thirdly, the idea that the Zapatistas with their 30 year history, though certainly a respectable indigenuous revolutionary movement, are "doing far better than the Soviet Union" is again, unsubstantiated, when you declare it as such and make no justification for it. The near-full century of experience of the Soviet Union, from doubling of life expectancies, to democratizing production and government with the Soviet system, to rapid industrialization, to free healthcare and lower working hours, to dramatic improvements in wealth inequality, cannot be simply swept under the rug.
I do agree that Mao made large errors, in trying to realize communism when the productive forces were not yet ready for it, famines occured and struggles happened. However, the PRC reverted to a Marxist-Leninsit line, one it continues to this day as a Socialist Market Economy. The idea that a country with half the economy in the Public Sector and another tenth in the Cooperative Sector, where the Private Sector is subservient to the Public Sector and gradually being incorporated in the Public as it develops and prepares itself for Central Planning, is somehow Capitalist, is again absurdity.
Again, Engels stated quite clearly that Private Property and Markets cannot be abolished overnight. The entire foundation of Scientific Socialism rests on the idea of modes of production as historical stages, as markets coalesce into syndicates they prepare the foundations for Central Planning and Public Ownership. One cannot simply press the "communism button" and skip developing the productive forces.
Throughout your entire comment you have
This is dogmatic Ultraleftism that goes against the very foundations of Dialectical Materialism. I suggest you make an effort to read theory, or return to it if you're just rusty. If you want, I have an introductory reading list you can check out.
Marxism-Leninism is the only Marxism that has been put in practice, moreover Marxism-Leninism is not a departure from Marxism. I don't know how you say "Marxism works" and reconcile that with "Marxism-Leninism does not" within the same breath. What are you trying to say here? Where do Marx and Lenin disagree? How does Marxism work and Marxism-Leninism not?
Lessons bourne out of past revolutionary experience prove Marxism does work, but like all real systems, face real struggles. The answer is not to abandon it entirely and adopt Anarchism, which has not had real practical experience to draw from, but to learn from what has and has not worked in AES States. Centralization is the basis for true democracy, as without it the power of each individual aspect of society is governed by their locality. In an ever-interlocking world, the local cannot take priority over the whole. That does not mean all power should come from above, but rather that through centralization democracy can be better utilized from below and above.
To make the claim that AES is "centralization in the hands of the few" and that it "never leads to the liberation of the working class" is dogmatic thinking based on a false premise and false conclusion to said premise, and you haven't justified any of it. Such subjectivism does not constitute objective, rational reasoning, and as such fails to truly learn from the results of past and present Socialism.
Is "working" a sliding goalpost for you, or can you define it? You made the claim that Communism only works on paper and are asking people to disprove your claim, rather than substantiate your claim yourself. Surely you can see why others find your comment unproductive, correct?
Simply because he shifted his position against the usage of the Bourgeois State into using a Proletarian State does not mean if he lived to today he would have gone any further than that. We must learn and adapt, yes, but not do so blindly. Ultraleftism out of dogma is flawed thinking that leads to incorrect conclusions, and I see no reason to believe he "started down the track" at all. Rather, he reframed, and this new frame has no theoretical basis for being a road at all unless you can make the case that central planning and public ownership of underdeveloped sectors of the economy is reasonable unilaterally.
Then I fail to see how you can make this claim:
He started down the track that its impossible to abolish the state, after concentrating all power in the state, as those holding power will never give it up.
The withering away of the Proletarian State is not on the basis of "giving" anything "up." The basis is on the State folding everything into the Public Sector, at which point laws like Private Property Rights disappear alongside it. When the government has folded all property into the Public Sector, the State itself ceases to exist, there's nobody to "give up" and nobody to "give up" to. There is just the people, as they make up the "administration of things."
He leaned towards elimination of the Capitalist State but that a Proletarian State cannot be abolished by decree, only via sufficient development of the productive forces and gradually wresting from the Bourgeoisie their control as such productive forces develop. To suggest otherwise would go against the concept of Scientific Socialism. Engels puts it best in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which Marx said in his written preface in 1880 "best characterizes the theoretical part of the book, and which constitutes what may be called an introduction to scientific socialism:"
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Another emphasis, from Marx himself in Manifesto of the Communist Party, which Marx stood by to the very end with only slight alterations regarding the immediate destruction of the bourgeois state and replacement with a proletarian state after the lessons of the Paris Commune:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Finally, Engels in Principles of Communism elaborating that the folding of Capital into the Public Sector is a gradual process and not an immediate one:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
Marx was not an Anarchist.
Lemmy.world defederated from the largest explicitly Marxist aligned instances, their thread going over why spells out pretty clearly that opposition to liberalism was the key determining factor in doing so. Lemmy.ml isn't even a Marxist instance, only admin'd and moderated by Marxists, yet is the instance with undeniably the most conflict with Lemmy.world currently among their federated instances. Moreover, many lemmy.world mods have expressed negative opinions towards Marxism directly, here's an example.
Lemmy.world is a liberal instance, is admin'd and moderated largely as such, and has taken deliberate measures against Marxism and Marxists. I believe it's fair to consider Lemmy.world to overall be anti-Marxist. Does that mean no users share Marxist sympathies? No, of course not, but overall the bias is clear. Similarly, by defederating from the larger Marxist-aligned instances, a thread on Lemmy.world is shutting out the viewpoints of most of the Marxists, rather than having a "broad" view, this minimizes the variance in responses.
Just my 2 cents.
You're a bit confused here. I'm explaining the takeaways for Marx from the Paris Commune. When the Communards seized the state, they did so on the basis of the existing state, they did not replace it but take hold of it, and as such they only held power for a short period as it quickly transitioned back to Capitalism. Marx then saw the need to replace the State with a Proletarian State. It isn't impossible to abolish Marx's conception of the State, rather, when the Proletarian State is founded and eventually folds all property into the Public Sector, there ceases to be a proletariat and a bourgeoisie at all, and thus there ceases to be a State. The State isn't a special class, but an extension of the Class in power.
To clarify, Marx remarked that the existing Capitalist State cannot be merely siezed, it had to be replaced by a Proletarian State. This is because Marx viewed the State as an instrument of class oppression, as a Proletarian State gradually absorbs all Capital into the Public Sector as it sufficiently develops, it slowly erases class distinctions, the complete absorption marks the disappearance of the State along with the disappearance of classes. Government is not the same as the State for Marx.
There's a lot of confusion in these comments regarding Marxist theory, presumably from people who haven't actually engaged with the source material, so I want to clarify something I see repeated frequently in this thread with little pushback. The Marxist theory of the State is not the same as the Anarchist, nor the liberal. Marx defined the State as a tool of class oppression.
The reason I state this is because there's a confused notion that Marxists think there should be
I'll address these in order. First, the Vanguard is in no-way meant to be unaccountable, nor a small group of elites, but the most politically active, practiced, and experienced among the proletariat elected by the rest of the proletariat. The concept of the "Mass Line" is crucial to Marxist theory, that is, the insepperability of the Vanguard from the masses. If this line is broken, the Vanguard loses legitimacy and ceases to be effective, whether it falls into Tailism or Commandism. These tendencies must be fought daily, and don't simply vanish by decree.
Secondly, the basis for Marxian Communism is the developmental trends of Capitalism. Markets start highly decentralized, but gradually the better Capitalists outcompete and grow, and as they grow they must develop new methods of accounting and planning. Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, yet socialization increases as these conglomerations begin to reach monstrous heights and require incredibly complex planning. The development of such methods and tools is the real, scientific foundation of Public Ownership and Central Planning.
Continuing, once the Proletariat takes control and creates a Proletarian State, the Proletariat, the more experienced among them the Vanguard, gradually wrests from the bourgeoisie their Capital with respect to that industries and sectors that have sufficiently developed. This process continues until all Capital has been folded into the Public Sector, at which point laws meant for restraining the bourgeoisie begin to become superfluous and "die out." The Vanguard doesn't "dissolve" or "cede power," but itself as a concept also dies out, as over time new methods of planning and infrastructure make its role more superfluous. Classes in general are abolished once all property is in the Public Sector, and as such the State no longer exists either, as there isn't a class to oppress.
This is why Marxists say the State "withers away." It isn't about demolishing itself, but that Marx and Engels had a particular vision of what the State even is, and why they said it could not be abolished overnight.
Hope that helped! As a side note, asking this on Lemmy.world, an anti-Marxist instance, is only ever going to get you answers biased in that direction. I suggest asking on other instances as well to get a more complete view.
The Marxist theory of the State is as an instrument of class oppression, not all forms of government. The idea is that the Proletariat, after destroying the Capitalist State and replacing it with a Proletarian State, this "dictatorship of the proletariat" will gradually fold Private Property into the Public Sector after markets cease to be an effective tool for developing and Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more effective.
This happens unevenly, and there are different points where some sectors can be publicly owned much earlier than others, so this doesn't happen overnight. Once all property is in the Public Sector, there are no more classes, and thus all instruments that protected against the bourgeoisie become superfluous and "dies out," leaving a stateless, classless society with central planning. Engels calls this the "administration of things."
Yep, I wasn't even trying to start a debate, just point out that they were being dishonest on this thread and misrepresented the other thread entirely.
I told you outright that I'm not trying to start a debate here, just point out dishonesty. I doubt TheOubliette is going to start anything here either, people have more important things to do than try to convince someone who is unwilling to listen to begin with.
The only reason I replied was to give context to this comment:
I’ve been called a racist, a homophobe (???) and worst of all a liberal and a fascist (same thing apparently /s) all because I insisted that China isn’t worth simping for.
That's not what happened, I showed what actually happened. The homophobic comment was well-warented as well, claiming users are "sucking XYZ person off" is an insult historically directed at men on the basis of homosexual actions being "shameful" or "gross," reinforcing that image of homosexuality. As a pansexual man, that certainly doesn't feel good to see. You crafted an enemy to fight, and when people pointed out that the enemy you created in your head doesn't actually exist, you projected that strawman onto others. Here's an example:
If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I’m a donkey with a laser dick :P But I’m more anarchistically inclined so different perspective. I see your point though. What I’m saying is not that communist = tankie, on the contrary. I’m saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
Despite multiple people providing nuanced responses with western sources backing them up, and only a few people calling you a liberal, you started calling others "tankies." Even now, I never once called you a liberal, you had to lie about that to provide a "buffer" for yourself.
What I hate most about tankies is that they are the only true leftists and anybody who disagrees with them is just a poser and a liberal. Especially anarchists.
Many of the people disagreeing with you and calling you a liberal were Anarchists, actually. Anarchism isn't a vibe, or a purity test, Anarchism must side with reality. Simply saying "every government bad, and the more people, the more bad it is" would only be applicable if there was already a mass Anarchist movement that served as a genuine alternative. In the absence of such a movement, you have to work with what's there and build up alternatives in the meantime.
I'm not interested in "debating you." I just saw you misrepresenting Marxists and Anarchists who disagreed with you as "tankies" who "simp" for the PRC despite giving well-sourced and nuanced responses. Not everyone was respectful, but numerous people were, and when people like @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml gave you careful and thoughtful responses to questions you yourself asked,, you ignored the majority of the comments because "you were busy," rather than simply not responding. You couln't even do the bare minimum of respect for all that effort, but you had to get in a quick jab in response.
All I'm saying is that you need to do some self-crit. What was your goal? To convert people to see things your way? That backfired spectacularly. Was it to learn more yourself? You evidently admitted to not reading the longer, higher effort comments, so that's a wash too. If anything, it just seems like you wanted to argue and call people tankies. I don't think your accusation that "tankies" call everyone else a "lib" is a coincidence given your tendency to call people who disagree with "tankie," it's projection.
See, you're doing it again. No matter how many times people explain that the PRC isn't an empire, you double down with bulletproof logic like "the more populous the country, the more evil it is." You hide behind the phrase "tankies exist," then build up a strawman of a tankie, then start calling others that don't fit that strawman a tankie anyways when they debunk one of your myths.
Did you really learn absolutely nothing from that thread? I figured there was a solid chance you'd change your perspective at the minimum, but you just double down further and further.
I provided much more than CGTN, and that was with respect to legal structures alone. Everyone else provided plenty of evidence as well. You provided very little and doubled down on anti-China myths.
The burden of proof is on the person making claims. The people in that thread nevertheless gave you plenty of proof countering your claims.
For clarity, the thread you are talking about was filled with reasonable discussion that you doubled down on ignoring. The biggest thing people took issue with is your insistence on having a negative opinion towards something you in the same breath admitted you lacked real knowledge of how the PRC works. There's a difference between having an opinion based on strong investigation, and one made by vibes, something pointed out repeatedly to you.
Capitalism requires a State to enshrine Private Property Rights, neither can exist without a form of government.