Cowbee

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Kinda, along with essentially seeing it as charity, and not one of the Empire’s instruments of exerting soft-power and as a front for funding millitant groups to support US interests without deploying the US millitary. Like, there is spending on developing hospitals, and good has been done with USAID, but that has always been the cost of using it for the purpose of funding pro-US millitias and fomenting regime change, and the new admin seems to not see it for that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  The US Empire failed to raise successors that understand how it works, and thus they raised a generation of “true believers” in the myths and lies the more competent generations of leaders spread to legitimize their policy. Look at the defunding of programs like USAID, which has historically played a critical role in US-sponsored regime change, now seen as “woke” by the current admin.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Germany right now⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think that’s unique analysis, for sure, but I’d keep it to Capitalism. Historical movements recognized as fascist, such as Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany, arose specifically in decaying Capitalist economies where a millitant working class was growing, and the fascists slaughteted the Communists and Socialists. I recommend reading the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds (though the whole book is fantastic).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Germany right now⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Fascism is generally Capitalism’s immune system as it declines, meant to violently root out leftist opposition as workers begin to protest their conditions.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Germany right now⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yep, people love to reflexively defend NATO, as it’s very effectively pitched as merely a “defensive alliance” when it has always served as a coercive arm for the US to pressure its geopolitical adversaries, especially the Soviets, hence why they worked with the most effective anticommunists, the Nazis. If you don’t play along with NATO, then they pull Operation Gladio on you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Germany right now⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yep, prominent Nazis were even given leadership of NATO, such as Adolf Heusinger. The Soviets ended up being far harsher to the Nazis, hence why so many fled to Latin America to get away.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Germany right now⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Being anti-fascist is a good thing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Germany right now⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Germany was never truly de-Nazified.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s a difference between saying we should work towards getting rid of the necessity for Markets, and saying we need to do that instantly, today. Black Markets didn’t kill the Soviet Union, but they did highlight flaws in how it was run and where it was lacking. That’s a separate conversation that we can have, if you want, but is largely unimportant.

  The thing is, over time, markets centralize through firms outcompeting and absorbing or eliminating smaller firms. This increases barrier to entry as it is more expensive to compete on even footing. Marxists don’t want to abolish markets simply by decree, but developing to the point that they no longer make sense.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Trade isn’t the same as a market, necessarily, and markets aren’t the same as the specific Capitalist iteration that depends on the M-C-M’ circuit where commodities C are produced with money M in exchange for greater money M’. When Marxists say they wish to abolish markets, they mean so by stating that they wish, rather than production being handled through competing entities where that M-C-M’ circuit applies, we instead fold all of these entities into the public sector and democratically plan them along a cooperative basis.

  Early on, there would presumably be labor vouchers, which differ from money in that they would be destroyed on first use. A sort of credit for work, for use in the only “store” that exists. Social services and safety nets would be deducted from your “pay” and be free at point of service. Things like that, and this doesn’t really constitute a “market” in the normal sense of the word. Eventually, these labor vouchers would likely be abolished once they became unnecessary.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean, you’re almost speaking of the exact system Marxists want to work towards, just with the caveat that Marxists think Markets are only useful tools in less-developed and less-critical industries temporarily, before public ownership and planning becomes more efficient, and that the spread in difference between “luxuries” decreases over time as productivity improves to account for that.

  Have you read Marx, or Marxists?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  My favorite bit is that she’s well known for her exaggerations about the DPRK as

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not unheard of, but it’s incredibly ill-defined and means a million different things to a million different people. Socialists are, as a rule, democratic, so “Democratic Socialism” is similar to stating “Anti-Capitalist Socialism.”

  As a consequence, Democratic Socialism seems to mean anything from the Social Democracies in the Nordic Countries to Socialism but with a democracy structured like the US or Western Europe, as opposed to Soviets or Worker Councils or Trade Unions.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When we explain to other people how our capitalist system works and they recoil in horror⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think everyone believes that, there are many Anarchists that don’t agree with Marxists, and there’s broad diversity within Capitalist thought, Anarchist thought, and Marxist thought.

  The reason why you may be seeing more Marxists is generally because Marxism has played the most widespread and significant role as an alternative to Capitalism in modern history.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Reddit Sub Ban Wave⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  If “tankie” means general leftist, ie Anarchists included, then maybe. If “tankie” means Marxist-Leninist, then that’s Lemmygrad.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Reddit Sub Ban Wave⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  The two biggest spaces for trans users are lemmy.blahaj.zone and hexbear.net, hexbear is larger but is explicitly Communist/Anarchist, while blahaj is more liberal/progressive.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, this is a positive result, or at least it detects signifiers for pregnancy. You should take more tests, but they won’t disqualify the fact that these signifiers are present now. I would speak with a doctor to see if you can get a more accurate test (these could be wrong, don’t think that if you retest and you only see 1 line that you’re “safe”), and discuss potential next steps if necessary.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Has the USA turned into an oligarchy?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The USA has always and forever represented the will of the Bourgeoisie. The issue we are seeing now is further and further separation between the Proletariat and a smaller and smaller concentration of the Bourgeoisie due to Capitalism’s centralizing nature. The silver lining is that this same centralizing process makes Socialism even easier to implement once the Proletariat siezes control, as these large intricate networks have already developed their own infrastructure for planning that can be folded into the Public Sector, the hard part is getting over that threshold of power.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Frankly, this is wrong. I am not trying to be rude here, so please don’t take it that way, but as you admitted in the original post you aren’t very informed on this subject to begin with. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend reading my top-level reply to this thread as well.

  First, to get the obvious sticker out of the way, the Russian Federation is undeniably Capitalist, Socialism was dissolved and the former state was sliced up and sold for parts at garage sale prices to wealthy Capitalists. The USSR was dissolved in the early 1990s, 3 decades ago, and with it the Socialist economy was also dissolved. An estimated 7 million people died due to the sudden destruction of the economy and the utter crumbling of previously government provided services, like free healthcare and education, a process known as “Shock Doctrine.”

  Secondly, Fascism and Communism. You really need to read the book I recommended, Dr. Michael Parenti has an easy to read writing style packed with wit and rigorous historical analysis, however I will respond as best I can to the points you yourself brought up.

  It is correct that both Fascism and Communism have an “in-group” and an “out-group,” but if you don’t actually see which group is represented and which group is oppressed by which system, you come to false conclusions. Fascism’s in-group is undeniably the national bourgeoisie, the Capital owners that profited immensely off of the various fascist movements, such as Ford, Hugo Boss, Krupp, many of which exist to this day in some form. The out-group is also undeniably the proletariat, the working class. Often times, somewhat due to the Nietzchian influence, ethnic groups such as Jewish peoples and Slavic peoples were targeted, along with any organized members of the working class, especially Communists. Fascism is a sort of “immune system” for Capitalism.

  What about Comminism? Well, it’s the exact opposite. Communist movements have historically come from the Proletariat (as well as the peasantry, especially in China where there wasn’t a large Proletariat at the time of its revolution), and have served the Proletariat greatly. The oppressed class is the Bourgeoisie. What this historically has translated to is AES states (or “Actually Existing Socialism”) working towards huge literacy programs, massive education expansion, rapid industrialization, and generous social services. The USSR, for example, provided completely free healthcare and education, and had lower retirement ages than the United States, the social safety net actually inspired FDR’s New Deal as a means to prevent revolution within the United States during the Great Depression.

  Moreover, the USSR and the Nazis saw the vast majority of the fighting in WWII. 80% of Nazi deaths came from the Eastern Front, it was the strategy of the West to let both the Nazis and the Communists fight it out and grind each other to a pulp. Truman spoke this of the strategy:

  If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

  Ultimately, the real issue here is trying to dress up a massive difference as a small one, and using it to equate two polar opposites. Again, I highly encourage you to read the top level comment. No, AES states are not and have never been perfect, but they have also been in no way shape or form comparable to fascist states, in who they serve or how they functioned, and to equate them is a massive error.

  Let me know if you have any questions!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The state is fundamentally a tool of class oppression. Such aspects would include private property rights, and other enshrinements of class distinctions, which are gradually erased as property is collectivized. Additionally, aspects like policing would transform to be more akin to social workers as the economic reasons for crime would be dramatically minimized, things like that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Engels calls it “the Administration of Things,” I’d call it government. Really, the heart of the matter is that many people think Marx was advocating for decentralization, which does not logically follow from the rest of Marxism advocating for central planning and whatnot, leading to a weird misconception of a lot of cebtralization and somehow dissolving, which is evidently false.

  We can think of it as a “State” remaining as long as we recontextualize what that means with respect to Marxism, the modern colloquial sense of a State would remain in an altered form is all.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No, what you say isn’t true at all, nor are you speaking in real terms but vibes. You’re historically wrong and sociologically wrong.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Not necessarily, this is extremely oversimplified.

  First, Marxists advocate for building Dual Power, ie an existing “second government” to take the place of the first.

  Second, Humans don’t “crave power.” Humans work towards their own self-interest, but this alone doesn’t translate to “power.”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Revolution is required to bring it about. You can observe the various successes and struggles faced by existing Socialist societies and historical Socialist societies to see what has worked and what hasn’t quite worked for how to organize it.

  Moreover, every system is going to be susceptible to corruption and greed, Socialism would be more resiliant against it due to focusing production on fulfilling needs, rather than profits as a rule.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, I’ll take a crack at these!

  For your first question, we have to question what it would mean to revert from full Public Ownership to some kind of Private Ownership. Such a method would require a revolution, to change hands from the global population to an elite few, but how would they do that? Communism is international, there’s little need for an army at all at that point, and police would be replaced largely by social workers. Such an upbeaval of the status quo would require a massive upset.

  If you mean from within the system, ie slowly boil the frog and peacefully remove all democracy, I would ask you to explain how that would happen given the democratic forces at play and overall economic basis being one requiring everyone in society to be able to participate to their fullest extent, as well as why, when such a system would be at relative abundance.

  At earlier stages in development, ie Socialism, sort of? However, I reiterate, planning is not a class, it’s a form of labor.

  For your second question, I suppose I would say yes, Marxists don’t believe Communism to be the “end.” However, it is unlikely that such a system would move in favor of decentralization, as decentralization removes democratic input and paves the way for competition and markets to resurface into Capitalism. Engels’ work Anti-Duhring is centered on such a concept, though it isn’t on my reading list.

  As for whether or not humanity will eventually move into a more Anarchist style, there’s little to suggest so far that mass, complex industry will simplify itself to where there is a total reversion from full public Ownership and central planning to incredibly simplified individual ownership and planning. I won’t say it’s impossible, but new analysis within Communism would have to observe its trends and predict the next phase of society to be based on atomization and individualism, rather than mass cooperation.

  Marx never “decided” that Socialism was good so it should happen, rather, Capitalism’s natural tendency to centralize and teach society how to scale industry further and further and plan it meant Socialism was the next logical step. Such analysis would have to be done again, within Communism, and observe such phenomena to make it valid analysis.

  Hope that helps!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No problem, thanks for asking! 🙂

  One thing I think you’re misreading is the State withering away. What we commonly think of as the “State,” ie the entire public sector, government, administration, etc is not the same as what Marx calls the State. For Marx, the State is the elements of Government that contribute to Class oppression.

  Before we can continue, we need to know what a “class” even is to begin with. Elsewhere in this thread, people make reference to something like a “planner class,” but for Marx, no such thing exists. Rather, Classes are social relations with respect to ownership of the Means of Production and interaction with it. “Plumbers” are not a class, just like “managers” are not a class. The reason this is important, is because a classless society is one that holds all of the Means of Production in Common. In other words, full Public Ownership.

  Circling back to the State, how does it “wither away?” The answer is that the Proletarian state, one dominated by the Proletariat and not the Bourgeoisie, gradually wrests from the Bourgeoisie its Capital with respect to the degree that it has developed. A Socialist revolution would not turn everything into Public Property instantly, markets and Capitalists would remain until the industries they govern develop enough that Public Ownership becomes more efficient and markets stagnate, ie monopolist phases where competition has run dry.

  Since this is a gradual process, imagine every bit of Private Property wrested chips away at the State. The second Private Property reaches 0% and Public Property reaches 100%, there are no longer any classes, and thus no class to oppress. The “State” disappears, leaving only government, administration, and more behind.

  As for the structural makeup of the socialist government, it would be most likely made up of “rungs,” a local rung, a regional rung with representatives from each local rung, a provincial, national, international, etc rung, as many as needed and as few as necessary for proper Central Planning. What you describe as people being able to just “take advantage” of that could happen, Communism isn’t some utopia of perfection, but such a society is far more resiliant and more importantly builds up over time in a realistic manner.

  Does that answer your question? Feel free to read from the reading list I linked earlier, also linked on my profile!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s fair! Marxists are most commonly found on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net. Lemmy.world skews very liberal and is defederated from the latter 2, so as a consequence asking on Lemmy.world gets a very oversimplified view of Marxism.

  If you want to learn about Marxism, you can check my reading list linked in my top level comment or on my profile.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Not written out, as far as I’m aware. Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than Lemmy.world, however, so it can cast a wider net. Perhaps asking on c/socialism or c/communism would be a good bet for OP. Per your question, though, it really is just found out either by checking each instance or feeling it out if it isn’t explicitly stated.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah, fair enough! This is Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, one of the best introductions to the philosophical aspects of Marxism in my opinion.

  As for your point, public ownership and central planning requires infrastructure to direct production and people/algorithms to fulfil those roles (not getting into Cybernetics at this point as that’s another can of worms). All Communists espouse democratic values, usually in the form of “units” that elect representatives from within themselves to a higher unit, in a ladder approach, with instant recall elections available as a countermeasure. Furthermore, the concepts of Democratic Centralism and the Mass Line are critical for Marxist organizational theory.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Communism is democratic, yes. This can have multiple parties, but generally having different parties is not the same as having democratic control. It’s arguably more important to be able to vote on what you want, or who you want to do it, within an existing party or party-less system. As an example, among a local council, rather than voting on a party, it makes more sense to vote on which representative from said council will participate in the regional council, not necessarily which party.

  Secondly, again, you are confusing a “State” in the Marxist sense, ie the elements of government that denote class distinctions (private property rights, as an example) with the colloquial sense of the word “State,” which is largely synonymous with government. Communism would have a government, complete with elections and representatives, without a state, hence me bolding Engels when he says "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production." You cannot direct the processes of production without, you know, directing production.

  Moreover, corruption likely will never fully go away, but it will be minimized over time, certainly in comparison to modern Capitalism, and even early Socialism. Communism isn’t some Utopia free from any worry or problem, and Marxists are the first to point this out.