Comment

Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this

I believe at the point they have already become tankies, no good goal exists anymore. They only seem to work to defend what they have already achieved. And that is oppression.

I’m not sure socialism or communism can ever be made to work, but at least Marx and Lenin made it much more difficult to ever get there by demandinfmg we do the opposite of the goals of communism in order to get communism. People who are okay with cleansings and repression will cleanse and repress.

You don’t really go through the chore of reading Capital without really wanting to change the society for better. And because Marx, the death of communism, preferred violence and is convincing with his way of argumentation (at least if you’re a bit stupid), those who read the book until the end, end up forfeiting all good goals and will go for repression.

Tankies are people who used to want good things and fairness. And then they converted from that into tankies.

A strong leader will always lead you into a Russia. Into a quagmire.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Image

source
Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
This is nonsense, the only part you got correct is that those who read through Capital generally have an interest in a better world. Neither Marx nor Lenin advocated “doing the opposite” to get to communism, both argued for the establishment of a worker state to gradually collectivize all of the means of production and distribution. Historically, this method has been enormously beneficial for the working classes, while breing quite scary for landlords, capitalists, slavers, and fascists.

I’m also not at all understanding what you mean by Marx being “convincing with his way of argumentation (at least if you’re a bit stupid).” What would an intelligent person, by your estimation, take fault with in Marx?

source
- timdrake@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  
  What would an intelligent person, by your estimation, take fault with in Marx[‘s Capital]?
  
  Capital rests on the argument ~that the fact qualitatively different (in terms of use values) commodities are exchanged for each other in different quantities requires a quality they share in common which only differs in quantity from one commodity to the next, and Marx posits that the only quality this could be is being products of labor. Yet this is very clearly not something that all commodities have in common, and that a thing’s status as a commodity and its ability to be exchanged for other commodities has nothing to do with its being a product of labor. The only way Marx’s argument can be accepted is if you start with the presupposition that commodities are valued by the labor required to produce them.
  
  How this happens that commodities are exchanged at their “value” is a complete mystery by the way, since Marx says it has nothing to do with the conscious considerations of either the buyer or the seller.
  
  source
  - Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    
    Yet this is very clearly not something that all commodities have in common
    
    This is not clear at all. Elaborate, please.
    
    and that a thing’s status as a commodity and its ability to be exchanged for other commodities has nothing to do with its being a product of labor
    
    Why not? Are you saying that the utility of a commodity to someone does not change whether or not it was made with labor? This doesn’t really matter, though, the point of the Law of Value is that commodities are socially produced, and socially distributed, which normalizes their price around their values. Arguments like the “mud pie” don’t apply, because mud pies are neither useful nor difficult to make.
    
    The only way Marx’s argument can be accepted is if you start with the presupposition that commodities are valued by the labor required to produce them.
    
    Incorrect, the exchange-value that price fluctuates around is representative of the value in a commodity. Another way to look at it is that the value of a commodity is the sum of its inputs, which can be reduced to labor and natural resources.
    
    How this happens that commodities are exchanged at their “value” is a complete mystery by the way, since Marx says it has nothing to do with the conscious considerations of either the buyer or the seller.
    
    Marx is correct, though this is no mystery. Commodities are social products, and are socially exchanged. What’s universal to goods bought and sold is that they require natural resources and human labor to create them, thus capitalism in being a social process acts as a price-finder for commodities, all based on inputs and outputs.
    
    source
- Lehmuusa@nord.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  What would an intelligent person, by your estimation, take fault with in Marx?
  
  The dictatorship of the proletariat was a horribly bad idea. It’s a dictatorship. And brings the consequences of a dictatorship with it. I would dare to blame Lenin and also Marx for that crap.
  
  source
  - Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    The dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic state for the proletariat, and dictatorship against capitalists, fascists, landlords, and slavers. It’s the socialist equivalent to liberal democracy, which de facto is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
    
    source
Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Marx… is convincing with his way of argumentation (at least if you’re a bit stupid)

I’m sorry, what? Have you ever actually tried to read Capital? Most of Marx’s works are dense and academic, drawing intellectual traditions that are often unfamiliar to modern readers (classical economics, Hegel, etc). Marx’s way of argumentation isn’t really geared toward the lowest common denominator.

It’s kinda funny how you can’t even keep your criticism straight through a single comment. In one sentence, reading Marx is a “chore” that nobody would want to slog through, in the very next one, Marx is so persuasive, his honeyed words easily swaying the minds of any who stumble across them, like the Sirens calling ships to their rocks.

As for “no good goal exists anymore” or “it’s hard to see what good goal tankies ever had” maybe we just like it when this sort of thing happens:

lemmy.ml/…/86eca1ab-0d3d-4d7e-99fa-a7a3ddb4c3dd.j…

The revolution that feeds the children gets my support.

When you figure out a better way to do that, get back to me.

source
- Lehmuusa@nord.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  When you figure out a better way to do that, get back to me.
  
  Here goes:
  Image
  
  A similar jump from around 1949 to 1980. In China it seems to have begun around 1930, with WWII causing a dent. In Finland the same had begun around 1880’s. But the development between 1949 and 1980 is very similar, only: without concentration camps! (…since 1918.)
  
  source
  - Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    That’s still not as fast of a development, and the conditions aren’t really comparable. China used to be among the poorest countries in the world.
    
    And while their government has not always been ideal, it was undoubtably the best option on the table historically. The corrupt Nationalists didn’t do shit for the people (and pocketed foreign aid). Before that, with no central authority, was the warlord period. Before that was the backwards Qing dynasty. In all the thousands of years of Chinese history, nobody really did anything for the rural people until the communists.
    
    source
  - RiverRock@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    without concentration camps!
    
    Wrong as shit, how are you so ignorant about your own history en.wikipedia.org/…/East_Karelian_concentration_ca…
    
    source