Comment

Comment on Imperialism, authoritarianism and oppression is bad all around m'kay

GrammarPolice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

I never said Marxism is soft totalitarianism. I said state socialism is soft totalitarianism - a situation where all requirements for a dictatorship have been met; those are two different things. The reason is because if a situation is created where all property, institutions and means of production are government owned there is a non-zero chance of that government going rogue e.g Stalin.

Moreover, why do you believe the LeftValues test to be worse

I never explicitly said it was worse. I’m only saying that it could be a possible reason why your results weren’t congruent.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Marxism is “state socialism,” so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Marxism wants full government ownership of production and central planning. Additionally, as we already discussed, Stalin didn’t “go rogue,” he was elected and retirement was rejected. He was kept because he cracked down on opposition and opportunists within the party, and the central committee deemed this necessary. I provided the transcripts of his resignation speeches in my other comment that elaborate more on this. There was also a thread on Stalin over on Lemmy.ml with nuanced answers on him I recommend checking out.

Stalin was no saint, make no mistake, but he wasn’t a “rogue agent” either. He was deeply flawed, no doubt, but he was selected for by the party itself.

As for the left values test not aligning with the political compass, I recommend you reinvestigate that. Clearly it is highly flawed.

source
- GrammarPolice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  What do you define as state socialism? What sort of Marxism do you practice?
  
  The definitions I’m used to are state socialism - A type of socialism wherein some or many of the means of production are controlled by the state, the state in turn being operated by (or on behalf of) the workers.
  
  Marxism - Based on the ideas of Karl Marx, envisions a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the people.
  
  Also, why do you keep defending Stalin? I don’t think Marx would have condoned any of Stalin’s actions. I listed a bunch of atrocities committed by Stalin exercising his totalitarian whims. I guess if the nature of Marxism is to be genocidal, then we can say he didn’t go rogue. But if I’m not mistaken, that isn’t the case. By all standards, he went rogue.
  
  source
  - Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    You are confusing several aspects of Marxism, particularly with respect to the State. The State, for Marx, is an element of class oppression. In a classless society, the “State” doesn’t exist, when property is fully collectivized there cease to be classes. What remains is a “state” in the modern linguistic sense, but for Marxists is just “government” or “the administration of things,” as Engels puts it. From Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
    
    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.
    
    Marxism is not Anarchistic, it advocates for a world Socialist republic of full Central Planning and Worker Ownership, complete with hierarchy for planning and whatnot. The “state” isn’t a separate thing from the workers, but the workers themselves. The concept of a State is important for the lower stage, when Private Property still exists. From Principles of Communism:
    
    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.
    
    As per Stalin, I don’t “defend” him, and don’t appreciate your assertions that I do. I again want you to read “Tankies” by Roderic Day. Moreover, your confused understanding of Marx can be alleviated by reading my reading list.
    
    source
    GrammarPolice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Yet the roadmap of every communist country so far has involved a state and a leader that may or may not represent the interest of the people. Yeah, it seems like your idols need to go back to the basics
    
    source
    -> View More Comments