Post AkldVma7SRAR2h3KVM by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AkfuZCWdzJ1ueBspmK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T01:36:24Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I would like to know what anarchists think of this excerpt from Vladimir Lenin's "The State and Revolution" regarding the differences between anarchists and Marxists, and maybe to have a civil discussion regarding your opinion on it.#anarchism #communism #socialism #marxism
(DIR) Post #Akg6OMUBoWE5nsKipM by sashin@veganism.social
2024-08-06T03:48:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom One of the key elements of anarchist praxis is the idea of preconfiguration, "building the new in the shell of the old". Developing dual power structures that operate without hierarchy and would remain functional and capable of meeting the needs of people in the case of a collapse or failure of the system would continue to be able to do so. Finding out ways of growing, interconnecting, and defending these horizontal dual power structures from the inevitable blowback from the status quo is also praxis.
(DIR) Post #Akg7B82QJqp9BSbFNw by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T03:57:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin Lenin proposes in the above paragraph that the complete abolition of the state can only be achieved once classes have been done away with, which will be achieved by the establishment of a socialist state (dictatorship of the proletariat). What are your thoughts on that?
(DIR) Post #Akg8cjp42rPq8x51vc by sashin@veganism.social
2024-08-06T04:13:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Does not the creation of a government create a new class? A group of people with a different relationship to the means of production and therefore different incentives and class tensions?I think it's possible that we can have a much more granular view of what's happening if we don't as Marx and Lenin do, overly focus on class and class distinctions as the end all be all.Economics is like the disguise that power hides in.The economic system is a pretext only. A story that justify power relations between people and powerful classes. There is a way of looking as capitalism, feudalism and many other oppressive systems as the same thing in difference forms.There is the answer to the question:- How should we divide labour and resources? (That heavily privileges a class of people)- and a set of stories, myths that justify the answer (divine right to rule, free market etc)There is this idea I heard from the YouTuber Anark of a "lowercase r revolution". Not one big event but something, but something that were are engaging in constantly. From where we are we can't smash the machine. But we can loosen a few of its screws. We can gradually reduce our dependence by finding ways to work together to meet our needs independently from the system. This doesn't need to happen overnight, and it will be a path of less dependence to eventual independence. The principle of the unity of means and ends means that we should be distrustful of trying to engage in revolution or capture the state in a top down, centralised way. Getting lots of repetitions giving orders or obeying orders creates a certain kind of person, a certain kind of mind. Systems including people and minds tend to reproduce themselves and the circumstances that they can live in.To say that hierarchy and hierachical relationships are essential to overcome capitalism, engage in revolution and transition to a world without them is to give them too much credit.
(DIR) Post #AkggoO0gMmz8PRExQe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:36:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin "Does not the creation of a government create a new class?"Yes, you are correct. The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat does indeed create a new ruling class. That is the point of all government, for one class to dominate the other. Slavery states were the domination of the slave owning class over the slave class, feudalism was the domination of the aristocratic class over the serfs and peasants, capitalism is the domination...
(DIR) Post #AkggrLC1ITn0Xax60W by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:37:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin ...of the bourgeois class over the proletariat, and socialism will be the domination of the proletariat over the bourgeois class. This domination will go on until class distinctions have completely disappeared, leading to the obsoleteness of the state and its eventual withering away. This domination of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie is necessary to eliminate the class antagonisms that would otherwise lead to counter-revolution and the restoration of capitalism, as...
(DIR) Post #AkggwwUo25zvgLPUxs by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:38:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin ...what happened in The Paris Commune. This is explained in more detail in " The State and Revolution" and other books by Lenin, Engels, and Marx. "I think it's possible that we can have a much more granular view of what's happening if we don't as Marx and Lenin do, overly focus on class and class distinctions as the end all be all."With all due respect, that's completely foolish. We can have more understanding of what's happening if we focus less on class, even...3/
(DIR) Post #Akgh0PR0tZiIIqI0P2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:39:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin ...though the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat is the problem at hand? This makes no sense, and is precisely what Lenin meant when he accused anarchist of "not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished."You also say, "There is the answer to the question:- How should we divide labour and resources? (That heavily privileges a class of people)...4/
(DIR) Post #Akgh4CsnVMZSX460ps by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:39:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin ...- and a set of stories, myths that justify the answer (divine right to rule, free market etc)"That's class. You're literally suggesting that we focus on class and class distinctions right after you said that we not focus on class and class distinctions. None of this is making any sense.>>From where we are we can't smash the machine. But we can loosen a few of its screws. We can gradually reduce our dependence by finding ways to work together to meet our...5/
(DIR) Post #Akgh6tKsdXfWmEVmee by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:40:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin needs independently from the system. This doesn't need to happen overnight, and it will be a path of less dependence to eventual independence.<<This is extremely vague, and only proves Lenin's accusation against anarchists, "The latter(anarchists), while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power."6/
(DIR) Post #Akgh8TguxBWhoxZlbs by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:40:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sashin This entire response that you gave sounds like the exact kind of response that the anarchists Lenin was referring to would give, vague with little to no understanding of the conditions of which the state can be abolished.7/7
(DIR) Post #AkgilPlZa1e0tbsqh6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:58:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv >>well, it's been debated for over a 100 years - and the language from the start was polemical.<< So? Polemic is "a forceful argument or critique, usually given in a controversial or contentious context." I don't see how this is an argument against Lenin's criticisms against anarchists. An argument being forceful and harsh doesn't discredit it or prove it wrong. If Lenin had gave his argument against the anarchist in the...1/
(DIR) Post #AkginSPIjUI3fJRM6y by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:59:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv ...kindest manner possible it would still be the same argument.>>And suspicions at the time were justified when once in power, the first the Bolsheviks turned to were the anarchists.<<Having not read much on the early Soviet period, I can only assume that the anarchists were some of the first targets of the Bolsheviks because they were...2/
(DIR) Post #AkgipSDuO2r7ft40ZM by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:59:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv ...actively trying to destroy the socialist state that they worked decades to build.>>Meanwhile the anarchist critique completely came to pass. 70 years of "dictatorship of the proletariat" going nowhere towards communism, and ending in Putin fascism.<<This doesn't disprove the dictatorship of the proletariat at all because Marxist-Leninist never claimed that communism could be achieved in 70 years or within any time frame.3/
(DIR) Post #AkgirZcvpbi5DQmLGC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T10:59:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv The claims of Marxist-Leninist regarding the transition from capitalism to communism were that a socialist state where the proletariat becomes the ruling class must exist in order to repress the bourgeois class, and once class has been completely eliminated the state could finally be abolished. They never said that this process would take X amount of years because it would be impossible to predict that.4/
(DIR) Post #AkgitiOKDU3Iydy3SS by Kahte@masto.bike
2024-08-06T11:00:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Bisous du mardi šššš
(DIR) Post #Akgiv0f5lyzzvoQZhQ by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T11:00:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv The argument of "70 years and the Bolsheviks still didn't create communism" is a dishonest argument because it implies that the Bolsheviks claimed that they could create communism within those 70 years when they didn't. This argument falsely accuses the Bolsheviks of making a claim, and then says they failed at keeping promise to that claim.5/5
(DIR) Post #AkgizshKoGEggDnd7g by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T11:01:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Kahte š½š½š½š½š½
(DIR) Post #Akgw9aFfXuI9lnoeQq by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-08-06T13:28:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Leninās claim here about anarchists wanting to abolish the state āovernightā reminds me of the fossil fuel execs who claim climate change mitigation and energy transition activists want to switch off fossil fuels overnight. As in, itās a straw person argument, that seems built to serve the status quo (whether of hierarchy or of fossil fuel dominance)
(DIR) Post #Akgx0ksyjuA46BYaIq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T13:38:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter Based on my reading of the whole book this quote is from, it seems as though Lenin is being slightly hyperbolic when he says that anarchists want to abolish the state overnight. What he means, based on my reading, is that anarchists want to immediately transition from capitalism to statelessness with no intermediate phase in between. 1/2
(DIR) Post #Akgx23cSZe4oUPS2Ii by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T13:38:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter By that analysis, I can guarantee that his saying that is by no means a strawman, as he is talking about the anarchist goal of immediate state abolition as opposed to a transitional state phase, which is precisely what anarchist advocate for. 2/2
(DIR) Post #AkhDMW5y0dhfre1xEO by zillion@freeradical.zone
2024-08-06T16:41:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I agree that anarchists have many conflicting ideas about what the proletariat will put in place, but the Leninist proposal of a dictatorship of the proletariat has decisvely been shown a failure. The dictatorship has always become a dictatorship of a new ruling class that has exploited workers for its own ends. I would even argue that the new rulers, by directing production, have simply replaced one group of capitalist oligarchs with a new one, but that won't fit in toots.
(DIR) Post #AkhFbyJjYw19e4y23U by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T17:06:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion >>I agree that anarchists have many conflicting ideas about what the proletariat will put in place, but the Leninist proposal of a dictatorship of the proletariat has decisvely been shown a failure.<<I have to disagree that the dictatorship of the proletariat as proposed by Marxist-Leninist was a failure. To this date, the model of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been the only model of communism that has been successful at overthrowing...1/
(DIR) Post #AkhFfeUbDEBNJnnve4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T17:07:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion ...capitalism and establishing socialism. Of course there were problems of revisionism and reactionism that arose, but the general idea of a proletarian class dictatorship to take power after the overthrow of capitalism to supress the bourgeois class in an attempt to dissolve all class distinctions and class itself in order to make way for the abolition of the state and communism still remains relevant. 2/
(DIR) Post #AkhFiViCJbEKxEWmum by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T17:08:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion >>The dictatorship has always become a dictatorship of a new ruling class that has exploited workers for its own ends.<<You are half right. The dictatorship of the proletariat was indeed meant to put a new ruling class in power, as all states do. The state is a tool for one class to oppress another. That is its main function. In the case of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class that is to be in charge is the proletarian class, and the class to be... 3/
(DIR) Post #AkhFlqgan3wSsCMveS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T17:08:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion ...repressed is to be the bourgeois class. This oppression is to be continued until there are no more class distinctions or class in general, in which case the state would become obsolete, resulting in the withering way of the state and the creation of a stateless communist society. Compared to the bourgeois dictatorship, where democracy may exist but is primarily for the favor of the minority bourgeois class and not for the majority proletarian class, the... 4/
(DIR) Post #AkhFmzdsyaxowMeGn2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T17:08:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion ...proletarian dictatorship would be a class dictatorship where democracy would serve the majority of people, the proletarian class, and the only class to be oppressed would be the bourgeois class, the minority. 5/5
(DIR) Post #AkhXhm7rbL6UkMKdn6 by niko@masto.nobigtech.es
2024-08-06T20:29:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @zillion i want to add: this moment of "the state becoming obsolete" can only come when there are enough socialist states in the geopolitical scenario that can defeat capitalist imperialism, as this force will still exist even if socialist states start to arise. This capitalist force will, by any means, try to influence populations of socialist states to cheat people into thinking capitalism is better. That happened in the USSR back then, but i don't think it will work again.
(DIR) Post #Akha3VbhtiPlnImYBE by niko@masto.nobigtech.es
2024-08-06T20:30:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @zillion in fact, that propaganda is still alive (and rolling), there are still a lot of people that have kind of class-oriented thinking but when you tell them about communist organization, they always respond with vague responses such as "neither capitalism neither communism"
(DIR) Post #Akha3WND36PcAd0UDo by niko@masto.nobigtech.es
2024-08-06T20:33:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @zillion and that's the "best case scenario". Some of them directly oppose communism even if they represent the proletariat at it's most representative image.Propaganda has made a big win for capitalism, but that is expected to happen. States have full power to impose any idea, even if it's fake, destructive for the proletariat and so on...
(DIR) Post #Akha3Wtp5qV3nmGX3Y by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T20:55:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@niko @zillion >>this moment of "the state becoming obsolete" can only come when there are enough socialist states in the geopolitical scenario that can defeat capitalist imperialism, as this force will still exist even if socialist states start to arise<<You are correct. I'm not so idealistic as to believe that one country would be able to abolish its state without being hounded on by the bourgeois states surrounding it. 1/2
(DIR) Post #Akha44a9rSyKGdKJ7o by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T20:55:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@niko @zillion Essentially, socialism will have to be established all over, or nearly all over, the world before state abolition could even begin to be considered, and even then, even if all the countries in the world became socialist, class distinctions would still have to be eliminated within those countries which could take some time. 2/2
(DIR) Post #AkhfbX2RaA7VqkKZYu by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-08-06T21:58:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Fair enough. Iām not steeped enough in the debates of his time to judge how much the rhetorical hyperbole (which kind of defines a strawperson argumentā¦) is stretched beyond actual claims and aspirations of anarchists of the day. Iām also not in a position to make claims about what anarchists as an entire movement are calling for today. I do note that, like someone else in another part of this thread, the concepts of dual power and of ābuilding a new world in the shell of the oldā are pretty common and important in anarchist discourse. I think also that the claim (in Lenin above) that anarchists propose no future program and state no clear vision is kind of fair. From my understanding, (some, prominent strands of) anarchism is more about principles that can enable building many new worlds in the shell of the old world(s). Thatās distinct from the programmatic position I associated with communism (and Communism) that seems to prescribe specific arrangements. I think the principles approach is more flexible, open, inspiring, and ultimately resilient.
(DIR) Post #AkhhtSP1kxOeapZLs0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T22:23:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter >>I think the principles approach is more flexible, open, inspiring, and ultimately resilient.<<Whether an approach is inspiring is irrelevant to whether it will succeed in its goal. There are many ideas and approaches to solving certain task that arouses inspiration in people that ultimately fail.I can agree that the anarchist approach is more flexible and open in that it is more receptive to various perspectives and inputs than... 1/
(DIR) Post #AkhhwltxiSwtw8cS36 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T22:24:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter ...Marxism-Leninism, but I think that is to its detriment. With it being so open to differing viewpoints, it is more likely to be diverted off its original path and fail in its original endeavors by being coopted by too many differing and conflicting perspectives.I completely disagree that anarchism is more resilient than Marxism-Leninism. Not to deny its resilience, which anarchist movements have been shown to have, but compared to Marxist-Leninist... 2/
(DIR) Post #AkhhyiaezyPCFJWFGK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T22:24:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter ...organizations, which have a hierarchical organizational structure that allows them to be able to ensure that necessary actions can be made when setbacks or adversity comes, anarchist organizations, which lack hierarchical organization and rely on voluntary cooperation, would not be able to guarantee as speedily a reaction to setbacks or adversity as a hierarchical organization that would have the authority to ensure that necessary responses are made. 3/3
(DIR) Post #Akhn0nuWgi8L64cp2e by poebbel@todon.eu
2024-08-06T23:21:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom polemic isn't always a bad thing, but being eager to engage in polemic can have its pitfalls. sometimes a person gets so focused on articulating opponent-ally distinctions, and overcoming opponents, that they fail to learn from their opponents, or from the problems underlying what they see as differences. they can fail not just to understand, but even to register what their supposed opponents are saying.@jaythvv
(DIR) Post #Akho485YDvOKV4voVU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:32:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv I'd like to see your evidence for Lenin being disingenuous in his criticisms of anarchism.
(DIR) Post #AkhoAQojVHGQK94P4q by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:34:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel @jaythvv You indeed are correct in this analysis. However, having read Lenin's, as well as Marx's and Engels' criticisms of anarchism, it's made very clear in their works that they do have a correct understanding of the anarchist position and that their criticisms of anarchism are valid. 1/2
(DIR) Post #AkhoAuikK6Ih4GV2uW by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:34:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel @jaythvv Of course, don't just take my word for it. I recommend reading Marx's "The German Ideology," Engels' "Anti-DĆ¼hring," and Lenin's "The State and Revolution" to get a better understanding of the Marxist-Leninist opposition to anarchism. 2/2
(DIR) Post #AkhoS9PCyiqxXEa2N6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:37:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv As I previously stated, the reasoning for the Bolsheviks coming after the anarchists is likely due to them being a threat to their new socialist state.
(DIR) Post #AkholTMozCm4wkg2yW by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:40:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv >>If communism takes more than 70 years of sacrifice, what's the point<<The point is to actually create a movement that will eventually create communism, if not for us, then for future generations. Please don't take offense, but this sort of sounds like the kind of argument that boomers make when they question the point of stopping climate change if they aren't going to be affected by it.
(DIR) Post #AkhpWqC3w4HZLtEQSm by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:49:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv >>ideologically, yes. Threatening their regime? no.<<Besides the fact that an ideological threat to the regime is still a threat to the regime, there was also a physical threat to the regime in the form of the Black Army who both ideologically and physically threatened the existence of the new socialist state.>>Disappointed that the bolsheviks wanted party-controlled unions, instead of workers control? Absolutely<<This is wrong. The Bolsheviks... 1/2
(DIR) Post #AkhpY2aPLTj44pBugS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:49:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv ...did want and had worker controlled unions, but they had the unions function through within the framework of the socialist state to contribute to the construction of socialism. 2/2
(DIR) Post #Akhq6TYnYy1Ba5rH5U by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:55:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv >>Instead of unleashing the creativity of the people towards a self-governed communism. That is, skip the whole Dictatorship of the Party (for apparently indefinite time) altogether.<<If you're unaware of the reasoning that Marxist-Leninist give as to why the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to create socialism, then I recommend reading "The State and Revolution," specifically Chapter 2, titled "The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the... 1/2
(DIR) Post #Akhq7RGnZ1GqldtkMS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-06T23:55:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv ...Proletariat in the Revolution." It basically states that the proletariat must establish its own state power to suppress the bourgeoisie, prevent counter-revolutionary threats, and implement the measures necessary for the socialist transformation of society, but the chapter goes into much more precise detail than I can, so I'd recommend reading it. 2/2
(DIR) Post #AkhqWEYfxjpUaB5E7E by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T00:00:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv Well, I'd still recommend reading the book, or at least reading the recommended chapter, to gain more of an understanding of the logic and reasoning behind the dictatorship of the proletariat.
(DIR) Post #AkhqyV1ILtjJkHwoxk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T00:05:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv Well, if you've already read it and disagree with it, then we're at an impasse. The most I could do is repeat the points from the book and other similar books, points you've apparently already heard and don't agree with.
(DIR) Post #AkhrieNXt8U65nMULo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T00:13:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jaythvv This debate has exhausted its usefulness and is effectively over.
(DIR) Post #Akhvk9xYMBhE92BAbw by zillion@freeradical.zone
2024-08-07T00:59:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @niko That strikes me as a reasonable view, though who wants to wait that long? Egalitarian societies stand little chance against imperialism without protection. But Leninism has never led to a socialist society, and it has resulted in a dangerous Leninist form of imperialism: witness what happened to the Third International. I don't see a way forward. The decline of the U.S. as an imperial power and the growth of anticolonialist sentiment in the West are hopeful signs.
(DIR) Post #Akhx1d4fShvNJsOvEu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T01:13:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion @niko >>That strikes me as a reasonable view, though who wants to wait that long?<<It's not about how long people want to wait. It's about how long it will take. Regardless of how much people don't like the idea of the creations of communism not being able to be achieved in their lifetimes, that isn't going to change anything. It'll take as long as it takes. How long? I don't know, but all logic and reason that has been exhausted on the question by... 1/
(DIR) Post #Akhx7AqjJXArWGWeH2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T01:14:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion @niko ...countless political theoreticians suggest that it will likely not be a quick process, and it's likely to not happen in our lifetimes, but us not liking it isn't going to change anything.>>But Leninism has never led to a socialist society,...<<Yes, it has. It had never yet led to a communist society, but Leninism has led to the creation of many socialist countries. 2/
(DIR) Post #Akhx92pK74yTDUlABc by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T01:14:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion @niko >>...and it has resulted in a dangerous Leninist form of imperialism: witness what happened to the Third International.<<I have no idea what this is referring to. Leninism is against imperialism. According to Lenin, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, characterized by the domination of finance capital and the expansion of capitalist countries into colonies and semi-colonies to exploit resources and labor, and he argued that... 3/
(DIR) Post #AkhxA8SIfgxixmVjk0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T01:14:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zillion @niko ...imperialism exacerbates global inequalities and conflicts that the working class must resist in order to achieve socialism. Lenin's theory was that the struggle against imperialism was a key aspect of the broader struggle against capitalism. 4/4
(DIR) Post #Aki0y7Xqd9ssTsdGBE by poetaster@mastodon.gamedev.place
2024-08-07T01:57:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom well, it's not accurate. Beginning with ppp there are many and various ways and means considered. Just not the will to impose them. Like the hedonists, the anarchists done get sidetracked by autocrats.
(DIR) Post #Aki1E7pXKzSk00XOTY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T02:00:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poetaster I'm not exactly understanding what it is you find inaccurate with Lenin's position on the anarchists.
(DIR) Post #Aki53ocIJmKzKWgPLM by poetaster@mastodon.gamedev.place
2024-08-07T02:43:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Lenin fails to identify an anarchist. He merely smears a label.
(DIR) Post #Aki65sLzUjOBSBbTNo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T02:54:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poetaster >>Lenin fails to identify an anarchist. He merely smears a label.<<For context sake, this is only one paragraph in one chapter of the book. Lenin does talk more about anarchism in detail before and after this paragraph. And aside from that, I feel as though Lenin does a good job in this paragraph alone in describing the common anarchist position in regards to state abolition and their views of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state in general. 1/2
(DIR) Post #Aki674l2rVOqDJtWi0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T02:55:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poetaster This paragraph, by the way, is located in chapter 7 of "The State and Revolution," titled "Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871," just in case you want to look yourself. 2/2
(DIR) Post #Aki6e1GsqUBixOUmps by zillion@freeradical.zone
2024-08-07T03:01:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @niko I'm referring to the U.S.S.R.'s attempted (and largely successful) takeover of communist parties in other countries and its active sabotage of other socialists. Maybe I shouldn't have called that imperialism, but that's what I mean.
(DIR) Post #AkiDvjwMig2q67IMhU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:22:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww >>Empirically and historically, the state did not in fact wither away.<<Marxist-leninist never ever gave a definite time period for how long it would take for the withering away of the state. Lenin himself made it very clear that the withering away of the state would only occur when class distinctions have been completely eliminated, which obviously could not happen with foreign bourgeois forces keeping them on guard constantly. 1/
(DIR) Post #AkiDzq5hnGREKdcPWS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:23:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww The withering away of the state can only really occur once all, or at least most, countries have become socialist, which is exactly what the Soviet Union was trying to do throughout their existence but failed for various reasons that are too numerous to get into here. >>Bakunin was right about the creation of a new, bureaucratic class which was intended to, but can not, represent the proletariat.<<No, he was not. In ML states, the proletariat is able to be... 2/
(DIR) Post #AkiE2KxZzj2KeK0bsO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:23:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww represented through the democratic process. The thing people tend to not acknowledge about countries like the Soviet Union is that it was a democracy, but many people hear the word "democratic centralism" and hyper focus on the "centralism" part.>>What was once a cry of "all power to the soviets" quickly became the NEP, grain and rifle requisitioning, and war communism instead.<<The proposition of all power to the soviets... 3/
(DIR) Post #AkiE5QU7uRYmeZhncm by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:24:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww ...remained the goal of the Soviet Union. The NEP, rifle requisitioning, and war communism were all necessary steps that had to be made to maintain the socialist state and fight against imperialist threats.>>All of the old guard of the Bolsheviks themselves were purged,...<<I don't know the exact reason behind the purging, but I can only assume it was due to conflicts of interest and the priority of keeping revisionist and reactionary elements put of the party and state. 4/
(DIR) Post #AkiE8NRdfXJ05qwtea by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:25:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww >>None of this touches on the facts of "bourgeois decadence,"...<<I don't know what you're referencing here.>>"reeducation through labor," censorship of dissenting (even communist) ideas,<<Whether you agree with the specific forms of re-education the Soviet Union employed can be up for debate, but re-education of some kind was definitely necessary to prevent the re-emergence of bourgeois influence, and yes, they repressed... 5/
(DIR) Post #AkiEBepPUhwIsMdFOC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:25:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww ...certain communist because communist can also hold reactionary and revisionist views. Just because someone's a communist doesn't mean they're automatically free from all bad thoughts or influences.>>or the complete lack of organizations outside the state apparatus supposedly facilitating this withering away.<<Of course, there were no organizations outside of the state. The whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to... 6/
(DIR) Post #AkiEESGgeHYGn3iyQK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:26:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww ...guide society on a socialist path to ensure the eventual transition into communism. Allowing organizations to do whatever they wanted outside the states control would open up the possibility of reactionist groups forming outside of the states control.>>When you create a new political class, supposedly selected from the proletariat but making decisions for it, the class is incentivized into reproducing itself rather than laying the foundations for its own abolition.<< 7/
(DIR) Post #AkiEHZoN3kAn3Py6Do by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:26:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww There is no new political class being created. The primary difference between a bourgeois dictatorship and a proletarian dictatorship is that instead of the minority party of the bourgeoisie using the state to repress the majority proletariat, the majority proletariat will repress the bourgeois through state power. Will there be politicians and representatives? Yes, but these people are not a new class. They're... 8/
(DIR) Post #AkiEKJUkBFU5Jm5pEO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:27:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww elected officials who can be voted out of their positions of power.>>This began with the purging of left SRs, continued with the anarchists (which by the way, helped create the conditions for the failed revolution of 1905, and therefore also the February and October revolutions of 1917), and eventually to anyone who could be plausibly accused of wrongthink.<<The Soviet Union not allowing views and opinions that would undermine the structure,... 8/
(DIR) Post #AkiEOgqlHx7UuXTjfs by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:28:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww ...functionality, and existence of socialism, such ad SRs and anarchists who, despite helping create the conditions that led to the revolution, also held beliefs and supported actions that would have undermined the entire operation, was the most smart and tactical thing they could do.>>It wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a dictatorship of the self-appointed "representatives" of the proletariat<< 10/
(DIR) Post #AkiES5tYczjFSJPRpI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:28:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww What do you think class dictatorship is? We are currently living in a bourgeois dictatorship. Are the capitalists literally in the government buildings making laws? Sometimes, yes, but most of the time, no. It's politicians who are making decisions on behalf of the bourgeoisie, but the government is still a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie because all decisions are ultimately made on behalf of the bourgeoisie. 11/
(DIR) Post #AkiETyE86p6sFhvVzs by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T04:28:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww The same would apply to a proletarian dictatorship. There will be politicians who make decisions, but instead of them making decisions in the interest of the bourgeoisie and against of the proletariat, they will instead make decisions on behalf of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie. This state of things isn't the ultimate goal of Marxist-Leninist. It's only a stepping stone to the real ultimate goal of statelessness and classlessness, i.e., communism. 12/12
(DIR) Post #AkiPcsj51sGjIHr5Mm by niko@masto.nobigtech.es
2024-08-07T06:33:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @zillion and this is why there is a process called socialism, or a socialist state (socialist revolution), because it is a process impossible to skip.
(DIR) Post #AkiQ5eqXiEGAe34EgC by niko@masto.nobigtech.es
2024-08-07T06:39:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @zillion i guess there is a misconception here, as i saw he called "imperialism" to "forming a block of countries kind of "centrally" guided by one country".That is not imperialism. Imperialism, as already said, is the subordination of territories and people (invading the territory or not), the exploit of their resources to accumulate capital and the exploitation of all their workers.
(DIR) Post #AkiW2aJSi983RNVnpA by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-08-07T07:45:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Capitalist bureaucratic modernity is deeply uninspiring, but highly effective at driving transformation of all manner of things into wealth. It is succeeding at its goal. But weāre compelled, rather than inspired, to participate, and so we have a set of interlocking crises including alienation, loneliness, despair. Inspiration is vital for human flourishing.
(DIR) Post #AkiW6OEfYXWR8r5J7Q by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-08-07T07:46:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Whatās the rush? Why are we so often in such a hurry to take decisive action?
(DIR) Post #AkijSDxdjiuZ3BrRPU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T10:16:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter I can't tell if this comment is supposed to be sarcastic or not because it sounds very foolish.
(DIR) Post #Akil9iLWjxyLh9Krce by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T10:35:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww >>So how am I supposed to vote someone out who fully determines the conditions of my existence, including but not limited to limiting my right to defend myself with arms or with words, as well as determining what and how much I can eat, where I can live, and whether I get medicine or break rocks until I die?<<Are you asking how you vote someone out of power in a democracy? The answer is in the question. It's a democracy. It allows people to vote people out of power. 1/
(DIR) Post #AkilBr1bRc3rBs2KX2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T10:35:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww >>Democracy doesn't just not work because of class distinctions, but also because of very real national oppression, and especially but not limited to the national oppression of majorities over minorities, such as Russian chauvinism, and the oppression of the subaltern by hegemony.<<Democracy is not a perfect system. In fact, it is horrible in many ways, and Lenin was very aware of this. Lenin actually goes into explicit detail in "The State and Revolution" about... 2/
(DIR) Post #AkilDsutNjYndXrkZ6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T10:35:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww ...how awful state democracy is and how it is nothing more than a necessary step in achieving communism. "The state is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when, and as long as the class antagonisms are irreconcilable. The state is an organ of class rule, an instrument for the oppression of one class by another, a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." ā Vladimir Lenin, "The State and Revolution" 3/
(DIR) Post #AkilGJVxSkKwhwMTAG by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T10:36:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww In this quote, Lenin is explaining that the state, including state democracy, is fundamentally a mechanism for class oppression and not a tool for genuine equality or the realization of communism. He's explaining that state democracy, while appearing democratic, is inherently flawed and serves to perpetuate class divisions rather than overcome them. 4/
(DIR) Post #AkilHcLoulM9PxF16m by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T10:36:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@portlandiww This class oppression that the state generates is necessary for the proletariat to use against the bourgeoisie, but that is about it. Once all bourgeois influence and threats have been eliminated, the state will no longer be needed. 5/5
(DIR) Post #AkirSVKXxMdUYQDhQG by scottmatter@aus.social
2024-08-07T11:45:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Not sarcastic at all. And āfoolishā feels like maybe itās shifting the field of play from your invitation at the top of the thread.You donāt have to agree with it. Much wiser people than me, from Thich Nhat Hanh (who founded the Zen tradition in which I practice) to plenty of Indigenous stewards of territories of life, suggest we would do well to consider the advice ādonāt just do something, sit there.āSo much of the predicament weāre in is a result of surrendering to our compulsion to act quickly, decisively, overruling or disregarding dissent, and ignoring consequences.There are times and places for taking swift action and dealing with the implications later, but far far fewer than our dominant society of hierarchy, control, and efficiency would lead us to believe.
(DIR) Post #AkisuNWafh3SPKhzma by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T12:01:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter I apologize if me using the word "foolish offended you. I meant to only refer to what you said as foolish. I wasn't calling you foolish. I'll refrain from using that or similar language in the future.>>So much of the predicament weāre in is a result of surrendering to our compulsion to act quickly, decisively, overruling or disregarding dissent, and ignoring consequences.<<Being compulsive, not listening to any dissent, and... 1/
(DIR) Post #AkiswqvMKsmGASTR8C by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T12:02:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter ...ignoring the consequences of actions is not a wise thing to do, but not taking any action to solve a precieved problem is equally as unwise.>>There are times and places for taking swift action and dealing with the implications later, but far far fewer than our dominant society of hierarchy, control, and efficiency would lead us to believe.<<I'm not at all understanding the basis of this line of thinking. 2/
(DIR) Post #AkisxpH3xJmzL95cI4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T12:02:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scottmatter I'm of the opinion that there are times to practice patients and times to act quickly, but you seem to be under the impression that most of the time we should partake in the former almost exclusively, which makes no sense in terms of revolutionary action or making societal change. The vague, idealistic, and non-pragmatic nature of your proposal seems to verify Lenin's criticisms of anarchism in the above quote from his book. 3/3
(DIR) Post #AkjKun3aXaM6JL7zFo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T17:15:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Wgere Could you elaborate further on this claim?
(DIR) Post #AkjtbO9YPAdhy0Ozrs by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:44:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 >>Capitalism is not a stepping stone from feudalism to communism.<< Yes, capitalism is a stepping stone from feudalism to communism, or more precisely, from feudalism to socialism, with socialism being the stepping stone to communism. Capitalism is a vital intermediate stage that creates the conditions for the eventual transition to socialism and from there to communism, conditions such as advancing technological innovation,...1/
(DIR) Post #AkjteJnX3PAJKPUyoK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:44:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 increasing production, and improving the overall economic development compared to feudalism.>>Just like capitalism, modernity, liberalism, religion, and Marx himself, the state is a historical process and not inevitable.<<The state is inevitable. It arises as a necessary tool to manage and perpetuate class relations and conflicts. It is a mechanisms that ruling classes use to maintain its dominance over the... 2/
(DIR) Post #AkjthSGI2fRMRmRgZM by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:45:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...exploited class. In bourgeois society this mechanism is necessary for the bourgeoisie to maintain their power over the proletariat, and after the abolition of capitalism, it will yet again be necessary for the proletariat to maintain their power over the bourgeoisie until class, and by extension class antagonisms, have been completely done away with, in which case the state will no longer be necessary since there will no longer be a ruling class or any class whatsoever. 3/
(DIR) Post #AkjtkNw2aJNrtgN5H6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:46:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 >>How does the dictatorship of the proletariat, after co-opting the bourgeois state apparatus, go about killing the state?<< The dictatorship of the proletariat, once in power, will use its state power to start the process of eliminating class distinctions by equalizing the economic and social aspects of society by redistributing wealth through policies and taxation, providing universal access to essential... 4/
(DIR) Post #AkjtnNN38hud11QlYe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:46:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...services such as healthcare and education, etc. Overtime, this will eventually lead to the elimination of class distinctions and class in general, and since the whole purpose of the state is for one class to dominate another, there will be no more purpose for the state, leading to its eventual abolition. 5/
(DIR) Post #AkjtpoyrSQsbE1HaxU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:47:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 >>With the benefit of hindsight, we see the idealistic prescription of co-opting the state to kill itself fall to the wayside as the state chooses itself over the proletariat every time.<< This is a case of oblivious projection, because it is the anarchist prescription that is idealistic. Anarchism proposes that the state can be abolished immediately (and by immediately I mean without an intermediate stage) and that... 6/
(DIR) Post #Akjts8wiCKirj3NubI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:47:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...everyone would be capable of living in statelessness. This prescription, however, at worst, disregards the existence of counter-revolution in general, and at best, proposes that counter-revolution can be quelled or outright eliminated with no state or coercive institutions, which is the most idealistic claim to be made. In such a scenario that the anarchists propose, either the anarchist society would be... 7/
(DIR) Post #AkjtvQ0zBzlDX5wgwi by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:48:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...taken over by a group either within their society or from abroad that does believe in coercive force, or the anarchists will be forced to develop some form of coercive institutions themselves to prevent the development and spread of counter-revolution and repel against it from abroad, i.e., a state. It is the prescription of the dictatorship of the proletariat that is not idealistic, but pragmatic, because it recognizes that... 8/
(DIR) Post #AkjtyOg8cK0YG0c9dQ by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:48:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...immediate state abolition would leave society defenseless against threats local and foreign.>>Socialism- under a state- will not contribute to withering it away any more than capitalism would.<<This is just the blatant ignoring of the differences between capitalism and socialism. I've explained plenty above as to how a bourgeois class dictatorship that is beholden to the minority bourgeois class and is primarily focused on profit... 9/
(DIR) Post #Akju0nd6ov7ODlLL6G by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:49:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...is in no way similar to a proletarian class dictatorship that is beholden to the majority proletarian class and would be focused on equalizing society in order to eliminate class and eventually the state. >>This informs the anarchist assertion that the means must match the ends...<<Reality doesn't support this notion that, in this case, the means must match the ends. As explained above, the means of trying to use... 10/
(DIR) Post #Akju33f4BbryWNKsaW by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:49:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ..voluntary cooperation and non-hierarchical organization against enemies that don't use those means would be futile. When the other side (counter-revolutionaries, imperialist) refuses to fight on the same level as you and abide by your ethics and principles, they will have a clear advantage over you and will crush you. 11/
(DIR) Post #Akju7JUvFUcSnMcVQe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-07T23:50:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 >>... and also that dual power may be a better option than trying to co-opt the existing power.<<I don't know what this is about because Marxist-Leninists believe in creating dual power as well as a means to challenge the capitalist government and overthrow it. 12/12
(DIR) Post #Akka5iZhEqBs48m6E4 by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-08-08T07:40:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @sashinWhat distinguishes one class from another is defined primarily by the ruling class at the time. But the phenomena of class is an emergent condition produced by the limit of how many individuals a person can actually šššš¤, & the instinct for pattern recognition. Those with power will identify with those with power & reflexively favour those they identify with. This is what causes the entrenchment of power, & any approach to equality that focuses on the class 1/...
(DIR) Post #Akkqk5GJu9WxHOyuvI by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-08-08T07:44:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @sashin ... distinctions of the day, is doomed to short term success. It's taken thousands of years of biological & cultural evolution to get from troop to tribe to nation before getting side tracked by empire. Getting to humanity is a generational project & any group trying to take tight control of that, is creating the conditions for their instincts to undermine their desire to create the change they want.2/3
(DIR) Post #Akkqk65MqMMbpirgUS by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-08-08T07:49:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @sashin Humanity doesn't need a plan to create a planet of anarchist societies, it needs a plan to create the conditions in which anarchist societies can freely evolve.3/3
(DIR) Post #Akkqk6oO8yNO5LvdfE by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T10:47:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @sashin >>What distinguishes one class from another is defined primarily by the ruling class at the time.<<Not really, no. The ruling ideas of each age are the ideas of its ruling class, as Marx put it, but what defines the ruling class is its relationship to the means of production. The class that owns and controls the means of production is the ruling class, independent of whatever that ruling class thinks about anything. 1/
(DIR) Post #AkkqmJi59vjcfT22M4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T10:47:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @sashin >>But the phenomena of class is an emergent condition produced by the limit of how many individuals a person can actually šššš¤, & the instinct for pattern recognition.<<Excuse my language, but this is idealistic nonsense. The cause of class and class distinctions are purely materialistic, not dependent on how much a person knows about something. Class distinctions emerge from the development of economic systems. 2/
(DIR) Post #AkkqqM2yPczX4ejFcu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T10:48:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @sashin In feudal societies, for example, classes were defined by the relationship to land ownership and the division between lords and serfs. In capitalist societies, class emerges from the relationship between the ones who own the means of production, the bourgeoisie, and those who sell their labor, the proletariat. 3/
(DIR) Post #AkkqtLduN7SYgmQrNg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T10:48:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @sashin >>...any approach to equality that focuses on the class distinctions of the day, is doomed to short term success.<<As I've already explained, class distinctions are a result of the relationship between the development of economic systems. The form of which it can take may vary, but it is always one class owning and controlling the means of production, and another class that does not own or control them. 4/
(DIR) Post #Akkqw02j8Sl4ZFIzpo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T10:49:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @sashin >>Humanity doesn't need a plan to create a planet of anarchist societies, it needs a plan to create the conditions in which anarchist societies can freely evolve.<<The plan of the proletariat siezing the state and creating a class dictatorship is a plan to create the conditions in which an anarchist society can freely evolve. That is quite literally the entire point behind the idea of... 5/
(DIR) Post #AkkqyNJpZEmhKrREP2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T10:49:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle @sashin ...the dictatorship of the proletariat, to equalize society until class distinctions and class have been done away with, in which case the state would have no more reason to exist since the state only exist for a ruling class to subjugate another class (in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the ruling class would be the proletariat and the class to be ruled over would be the bourgeoisie), resulting in its inevitable abolition. 6/6
(DIR) Post #Akl409I1zrC1oBlxiq by OhSeitan@sociale.network
2024-08-08T13:15:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom thanks this is very interesting and I agree with Marx.
(DIR) Post #Akl5BV3lUs7iSy4muG by poebbel@todon.eu
2024-08-08T13:28:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom those are interesting texts, for sure, but i don't think that any single understanding of anarchism (or Marxism, for that matter) can claim to be the one correct one.
(DIR) Post #Akl8AlaWrJ6zIjk8dE by poebbel@todon.eu
2024-08-08T13:31:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCommeanwhile i find it a little amusing that Lenin should accuse anarchists of being vague about what to replace the state with precisely after mentioning the paris commune! there were anarchists participated in the commune, and plenty of subsequent anarchists have understood themselves to be working in its tradition.and as various people have pointed out, marx was prompted by the commune to reformulate some of his ideas about transitions beyond capitalism, and in some ways ended up moving closer to anarchist tendencies, for example by becoming less enthusiastic about the usefulness of taking over centralized state apparatuses.
(DIR) Post #Akl8AmQHksVntFxTIu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T14:02:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel >>i find it a little amusing that Lenin should accuse anarchists of being vague about what to replace the state with precisely after mentioning the paris commune!<<Being vague about a plan doesn't mean there is a lack of a plan. It just means the plan is vague. In the case of the anarchist, Lenin was accusing them of not having a well-thought-out enough plan for after the abolition of the state and capitalism, i.e., accusing them of vagueness. 1/
(DIR) Post #Akl8Fy93bG3dh4NG9g by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T14:03:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel It is very clear with how the Paris Commune turned out that their plan was vague on necessary specifics on what to do in terms of organization, food distribution, etc. The Commune's organizational structure was loosely defined. The decentralized nature of the commune caused inefficiencies and a lack of clear, centralized decision-making, which prevented effective governance. 2/
(DIR) Post #Akl8IGcNt9tHZ9Bga8 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T14:03:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel The Commune's leadership had ambitious plans for equitable food distribution but lacked the infrastructure and planning necessary to implement these plans effectively under the dire conditions they faced. The Communeās leadership included a diverse group of individuals with differing visions and levels of experience, but this large diversity of visions led to conflicting ideas and inconsistent policies due to not having a strong enough, or any, level of ideological unity. 3/
(DIR) Post #Akl8LUlrj0JMKTA57w by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T14:04:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel >>marx was prompted by the commune to reformulate some of his ideas about transitions beyond capitalism, and in some ways ended up moving closer to anarchist tendencies, for example by becoming less enthusiastic about the usefulness of taking over centralized state apparatuses.<<I would need a citation for this, because while I am well aware of Marx reformulating some of his ideas about transitioning from capitalism, he also... 4/
(DIR) Post #Akl8Nin2ZdFSO4ly7M by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T14:04:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel ...remained very supportive of the idea of a transitional state that would exist in between capitalism and communism, of which he called "the lower stage of communism"."Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. To this corresponds also the political form which the proletariat has to take in the course of its ascent to power." ā Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875 (4 years after the Paris Commune) 5/
(DIR) Post #Akl8OcTpWF9j6iDPwu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T14:04:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@poebbel In this quote, Marx is implying that a transitional phase involving a form of state is necessary as society moves from capitalism to communism. 6/6
(DIR) Post #AklG16yBJ7PsLtiIHg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:30:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 >>so the dictatorship of the proletariat captures what was previously a bourgeois state apparatus, which only moments prior was dedicated to maintaining social stratification and wealth distribution.<<That isn't entirely accurate. The proletariat is not seeking to capture the state, according to Marxism-Leninism. They seek to abolish the current bourgeois state apparatus and replace it with a proletarian state. 1/
(DIR) Post #AklG37E5KBofj86kHw by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:30:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 Co-opting the bourgeois state for the benefits of the proletariat is what reformist and bourgeois "socialist" advocate for, and it is completely opposed to the Marxist-Leninist proposition of the overthrow of the bourgeois state. >>By what mechanism do we expect the party/mob/soviet/council/governing body to begin the process of redistribution?<<I already mentioned some of the ways redistribution would go about being done by a... 2/
(DIR) Post #AklG5BBLaVgKZhoMnA by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:31:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...proletarian state, such as nationalizing industries and resources, heavy and progressive taxation on the wealthy, and free social service. >>It seems like we would have to trust the revolutionaries have the erudite and incorruptible wills to carry out their task.<<To an extent, yes, but this proletarian state would be one with democracy and term limits. There would be mechanisms, such as voting and... 3/
(DIR) Post #AklG7WuNmSrWXMzscS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:31:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...legislative restrictions on state officials, to truly make the state officials accountable to the proletariat.>>The party is given all the means and power to crush dissent, even amongst its proletariat base, and is expected to choose otherwise?<<The party would have all the power in the same sense that any state would have all the power since the party would control the state, but the state and party would function on a... 4/
(DIR) Post #AklGCFHWkAsRJi4UEa by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:32:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...democratic basis. It is the proletarians who would have the power to vote for their representatives, and the representatives would thus have the power to make decisions on behalf of the proletariat, with the threat of being voted out of their position if they fail to do so.>>You say that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be held accountable by said proletariat, but don't we see the opposite happen as the Bolsheviks consolidated power?<<In the case of... 5/
(DIR) Post #AklGE7LnCdDLIWxWzI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:32:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Draxton67 ...the Bolsheviks, they faced many internal and external difficulties that may have prevented them from fully implementing their ideals and maintaining full democratic accountability, but similarly to you, I have not fully researched the politics of the USSR and neither China as well. 6/6
(DIR) Post #AklGmcCX0VlKpE4q1I by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T15:38:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin >>So it may not be classed as a class in Leninism, but itāll look like a hierarchal power wielding class and act like a hierarchal power wielding class.<<That's because it will be a hierarchical power wielding class, and Marxist-Leninist never claimed the contrary. The proletarian class will become the new ruling class, meaning that the state will now primarily serve the interest of the proletarian class as opposed to serving the bourgeois class.
(DIR) Post #AklPnIeA5v9q3VP02y by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T17:19:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin >>As someone who believes in the Communist dream of there being no state, no class, and no hierarchy it seems like a step back on the road to achieving Communism to me.<<As someone who knows nothing of your particular reasoning, I can only assume you think that the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a step back is because you are not aware of the reasoning behind it. It is not a step backwards, but... 1/
(DIR) Post #AklPpijK5YPhWwyEuu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T17:20:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin ...a necessary step forward in achieving communism. The idea is that state abolition is currently not the best path to take as the threat of counter-revolution and imperialism still exists, creating the need for a proletarian state that will defend against imperialism and repress bourgeois influence until such a time when the proletarian state would have made class and class distinctions nonexistent, in which case... 2/
(DIR) Post #AklPsMeicIAzwA4sVc by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T17:20:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin it would then be possible to abolish the state without the aforementioned threats.>>Good thing Lenin achieved it and proved all us Anarchists wrong!<<You're being very disingenuous with this statement. Lenin never made any claims of being able to achieve communism in his lifetime or even in the generation after his. All he claimed is that... 3/
(DIR) Post #AklPtOQPWYl7iJsM5o by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T17:20:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin ...the dictatorship of the proletariat would eventually eliminate class, making the abolition of the state and communism possible. He never gave a definitive time period for how long it would take, and Lenin having not achieved communism is not proof against his political ideology. 4/4
(DIR) Post #AklQ0Gw1lpAgVjwcW8 by peterkal@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T17:22:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @NateProle @sashin Comrade said it in a very good way. I also suggest to read State and Revolution, a book of Lenin's on the topic.
(DIR) Post #AklWftociY3ih8iJtY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T18:36:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin >>For me itās a matter of morals<<Well, that appears to be the problem in your reasoning regarding hierarchy. You're prioritizing idealistic moral indignations about hierarchy over the scientific analysis and pragmatism that has led political theoreticians like Lenin, Engels, and Marx into realizing the necessity of hierarchy in creating communism.>>I donāt believe immoral means (hierarchy) can bring about moral ends.<<Hierarchy is... 1/
(DIR) Post #AklWivu7POA22cjMYq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T18:37:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin ...a social tool that is used to achieve social ends. Whether it is to be labeled "moral" or "immoral" is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.>>However the short message form doesnāt lend itself well to nuance or constructing a long comprehensive treatise<<You can give longer responses if you want. The character limits aren't a barrier to prevent long messages, as you can just make a thread with multiple comments... 2/3
(DIR) Post #AklWk8iLGaIw3onW7M by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T18:37:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle @peterkal @sashin ...that encompasses a larger comment. I've been doing it all throughout this comments section, but I would recommend writing out your comment in full in your notes app and then copy and paste it here. 3/3
(DIR) Post #AkldVma7SRAR2h3KVM by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:53:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle >>...many on the Left become Anarchists because they see the record of where such authoritarian 'pragmatism' leads & it certainly does seem to lead to very reliable - but very negative - results from my perspective.<<I don't really see that as a logical justification for someone becoming an anarchist. Even if someone disagrees with the authoritarian perspective, that doesn't prove the anarchist perspective by default. 1/
(DIR) Post #AkldZC11Lr3gnEGIEK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:54:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle The anarchist perspective would still have to be proven viable on its own to be accepted on any rational or logical grounds. Both anarchism and Marxism-Leninism have been tried historically, and out of the two, Marxism-Leninism has had a more direct and widespread impact in challenging capitalism on a global scale than anarchism has.>>I'll take the scientific approach and wait on Leninism creating the Communist outcomes it... 2/
(DIR) Post #AkldcTf6COjiOJZfNo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:54:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle ...promised before accepting that it is a better solution. The proof will be in pudding, whenever it gets baked enough to come out of the oven.<<Marxism-Leninism doesn't propose that communism is going to be achieved any time soon, so you're likely to be waiting for the rest of your life. Also, by that logic wouldn't you have to not accept anarchism as the better solution until it achieves its goal of creating a stateless society... 3/
(DIR) Post #AkldfoeCdE10LTkNE0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:55:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle ...with no intermediate phase? Because anarchism also has not been achieved yet, nor does it have the success rate that Marxism-Leninism has at challenging capitalism, so in that regard, there is less reason for accepting anarchism over Marxism-Leninism. When it comes down to it, both Marxism-Leninism and anarchism have not yet been successful in achieving their ultimate goals, both goals being the same thing, a... 4/
(DIR) Post #AkldianiZLpGGnWOw4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:55:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle ...stateless and classless society. The only way to decide which one, if any one, to pick is to examine the historical impact and the theoretical basis of these ideologies and determine from that if they are worthy of being examined, and as I've stated a few times above, when it comes to historical success and theoretical soundness, Marxism-Leninism beats out anarchism. 5/
(DIR) Post #AkldlSE4uH58XoDS64 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:56:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle This is a response to the quote you gave me:>>Lenin creates the state as a transhistorical āthingā, defined by its functions (repression). This approach flows from the base-superstructure metaphor, from āhistorical materialismā, which leaves class struggle out of the equation. It is structuralism with a voluntarist twist.<<This is completely untrue of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is not transhistorical. It is deeply rooted in... 6/
(DIR) Post #AkldoYhTICg1UZRdZI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:56:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle ...the historical and sociopolitical conditions of early 20th century Russia, and it adapted Marxism to the conditions of its time. This clearly shows that Marxism-Leninism is not a static or transhistorical doctrine.>>But how exactly do we utilize the present state? What does that train workers to do? They learn the mechanisms and functioning of an alien apparatus which represents one of the fast-frozen forms of the capital-labor relation.<< 7/
(DIR) Post #AkldrdYXh81VQBjhfU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:57:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle Marxist-Leninist do not want to utilize the present state. They want to abolish the present bourgeois state and replace it with a proletarian state. This proletarian state apparatus would not be alien to the workers, as it would be one that is democratically controlled by the proletarian class through the vanguard party, and it wouldn't represent the bourgeois capital-labor relation, as... 8/
(DIR) Post #AkldvTZ8mRuvaxqXdw by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:58:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle ...it would be a socialist state that prioritizes serving the proletariat and their needs instead of serving the accumulation of capital.>>Marxās notion that the state is the illusory community is lost on Lenin<<The is another attempt of someone trying to make the claim that Marx didn't support a transitional state when he very clearly did. "The state is not 'abolished' [in the sense of being immediately eliminated] but... 9/
(DIR) Post #AkldzGgibMbyoWCPa4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:58:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle ...withers away. It is not that the state, which is the executive of the class struggle, is abolished directly; rather, it is superseded by a new form of social organization." ā Karl Marx, "The German Ideology" (1845-46)"In the transition from capitalist to communist society, there is a period of political transformation that includes the establishment of a new form of the state." ā Karl Marx, "The Critique of Political Economy" (1859) 10/
(DIR) Post #Akle29AJ1m2kLpPYPY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:59:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle >>As such, Lenin believes that there is something usable about the current state<<No, he doesn't. He wasn't a reformist. He didn't believe in using the current state to serve the proletariat. He literally fought against contemporary theoraticians of his day who proposed the use of the current state to serve the bourgeoisie. All one has to do is read one book from Lenin to understand this very simple aspect of his ideological beliefs. 11/
(DIR) Post #Akle4adxpoUM9XRs6S by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T19:59:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle >>Lenin does not understand, therefore, Marxās idea of the Commune as a non-state or partial state.<<"The Commune was, in fact, a state in the process of being transformed into a higher form of society. This transformation was based on the recognition that the working class needed to reorganize the state apparatus to reflect its own interests and end the bourgeois stateās control." ā Karl Marx, "The Civil War in France" (1871) 12/13
(DIR) Post #Akle6M7UnvsRgh6Ulc by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-08-08T20:00:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@NateProle This quote suggests that Marx saw the Paris Commune as an effort to transform the state apparatus rather than as a purely non-state entity. The Commune was envisioned as a transitional form, which reflects Marx's understanding of it as part of a larger process of moving from the existing capitalist state to a communist society. 13/13