Things you hate? How can it be explained as capitalism if you won’t say what it is.
You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago. It isn’t just a random thing like a superstition. In fact believing capitalism isnt responsible is almost a superstition.
Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I’ve been alive. The system produces a few rich people at one end and a bunch of poor people at the other, that’s what it is meant to do, it’s what it does. It isn’t just an economic system, its the state and media as well.
People aren’t just blaming all their problems on capitalism like some petulant child. There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn’t been for a pretty long time.
You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago.
Marx proved nothing and debunkednothing , he’s not a scientist, he’s an ideologist and a creator of a cult.
It isn’t just a random thing like a superstition.
It is exactly that.
Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I’ve been alive.
That means the balance of power hasn’t changed, or changed in the way that wages stayed flat.
There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn’t been for a pretty long time.
I disagree. Human societies are very complex, and economy is basically an open system. Any reductionist model, like that of Marx, will fail in most cases and kinda work in some.
Clearly you’ve never read Marx, which is unfortunate. If you think Marx is a “reductionist model” then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn’t a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.
Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven’t studied Marx in a meaningful way what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?
If you think Marx is a “reductionist model” then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn’t a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.
You know, an adequate Marxist (I’ve met such, believe it or not) would not argue that it is a reductionist model (every model is, my point was that Marxists apply it universally without feedbacks, for which no model is good) and of course wouldn’t use amount of text as a measure of quality or correctness.
Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven’t studied Marx what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?
This text doesn’t make sense. I have a strong preference for Marcus Aurelius’ notes and Tao Te Ching over these, if you insist, but Descartes is fine too.
What power? The power of workers? You might have more Marxist ideas than you think.
In this case the power of people with interests weighing more on the employer’s side or the worker’s side. I wouldn’t say it’s power of workers, just like wind filling ship’s sails is not ship’s power.
I don’t think anything is strange in intersections.
You might be more well equipped for Marx than you think. The Tao the Ching, and the I Ching are both works of dialectical philosophy. Marxism, when applied correctly, is a fusion of empirical materialism and dialectics. Whenever people new to Marxism struggle with his method, I always recommend the Tao te Ching. People raised with western rational model, like us, struggle with contradiction in our reasoning. Except when it affects our lives directly, our minds reject it. The Tao teaches us to stay with the contradictions, which is what is needed to perform a dialectical analysis, since dialectics is the logic of change, progression, and synthesis, relation and contradiction.
This along with the mention of Marcus Aurelius reminds me of when I first started trying to educate myself, and came across the work of Nick Taleb. Its a bit pitched to the right for my taste these days (although his sterling advice, “don’t be a sucker” is as good advice as you’ll ever get,) but at the time it is what got me into studying philosophy, Meditations was the second philosophy book I ever read. I don’t consider myself a stoic, but I loved that book at one time, as well as the Enchirideon by Epictetus.
Your claim of an imbalance in power between the workers and owners is at least an acknowledgement of Marx’s theories. Maybe you like that balance, lots of people have a fetish for “balance of powers” and maybe there’s something to that. Except the balance can’t be achieved, it always prefers the owners and requires historical amounts of civil unrest to make any reluctant progressive change at all.
I don’t appreciate being told that I’m in a cult, a cult that never existed, and certainly Marx never started one. Its dishonest, but I guess you picked it up somewhere. I def didn’t know what Marx was about before I studied him. Buy now if I don’t know an author, I don’t have to pretend I’m smart or know something I don’t, I just say I don’t know and if I am interested then I study them. Very simple and honest.
Here’s the thing they won’t tell you about Marx: when you’re a worker and you learn to read him, because he’s difficult, you realize that he confirms your experience as a worker and goes deeper. He proves what we suspect but that everyone tells us isn’t true. He removes doubt and provides a way forward –
– and then you study the history of the USSR and other 20th century socialist experiments and the doubt comes back. But Marx was, hands down, the greatest intellectual of the 19th century and should be read and studied by all. Not to indoctrinate into a cult, but to actually open peoples minds to what is possible, and how class rule, throughout history, has worked tirelessly to alienate us from our selves and each other. Capitalism is just the latest and greatest form of class rule.
The USSR moved out of State Capitalism with the end of the NEP. It is technically correct that they had a State Capitalist economy, but they moved on to a traditional Socialist economy relatively early on.
“State Capitalism” is a form of Socialist economy primarily categorized by a State’s participation in a market economy, heavily directing it. The NEP was used early on as the USSR was very underdeveloped, and Marxists believe markets serve as efficient tools for rapidly developing productive forces at lower stages of development. This was shifted away from after the NEP to a more Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned economy characteristic of traditional Marxian Sociailsm. There were still some small markets and small commodity producers, but by far the primary sector of the economy was in the Public Sector.
Socialist economies are when you have commodity production and MOP owned by an ownership class.
👍
“Uhh akshually the proletariat owns the means of production because the state is basically the people.” Please, tell me you don’t actually believe this.
On the southern Kazak steppe an aged yellow-skinned herdsman, dying, sent a last message to his son who had been village president and who was now elected delegate to the All-Union Congress: “All the years of my life were dark with toil and hunger. But I lived to see the new day. Take care of the Soviet power, my son; it is our power, our happiness.”
For a socialist state, the simplest and most basic act of government is the planning by worker-owners of the expansion and improvement of their jointly owned properties. Planning of this type takes place not only in those central institutions of Moscow where the foreign visitor habitually looks for it; it begins simultaneously at the workers’ bench. Production meetings after work discuss shop problems, what holds back production, how much it can be increased, and by what means. These discussions are enlarged on a factory scale; they go from the factory to the central offices of the industrial trusts. Word comes back from the central organizations to the shop that the country needs certain new machines. “Can we make them in our plant?” Delegates from other industries which need the machines arrive, explain, mutually consult. The inventions and suggestions of the local workers thus widen into a nation’s plan.
“The whole working gang is interested in production. The program for next month is discussed with all of us. The foreman calls a meeting and tells us that the administration wants us to put out 3,000 milling tools next month. How shall we do it? We discuss in detail; each of us says what he can do. It all adds up to 4,000. So the foreman goes to the administration and raises the plan to 4,000. […]
Socialist economies are determined by which form of production is primary in an economy, and in the USSR post-NEP this was public ownership and central planning. It is undeniably Socialist from a Marxian analysis, the ownership being the public and therefore the Proletariat, not some obscure “ownership class” that has no bearing in Marxist analysis.
The Proletarian State is the tool of class oppression against the bourgeoisie. This is traditional Marxism, the public owning the MoP is the hallmark of Socialism, and the Proletarian State withers with respect to how collectivized production has become. Marx was certainly no Anarchist, there can be no Marxism without Public Ownership and Central Planning.
Socialist economies are determined by which form of production is primary in an economy, and in the USSR post-NEP this was public ownership and central planning.
This doesn’t mean it wasn’t commodity production.
Socialist from a Marxian analysis, the ownership being the public and therefore the Proletariat, not some obscure “ownership class” that has no bearing in Marxist analysis.
Not even but you’re too deep in the kool-aid to even understand your own prophet.
The Proletarian State is the tool of class oppression against the bourgeoisie.
And yet, it was a tool of oppression against the proletariat.
Turns out that the state and capital are one and the same, and when you try to use a system of oppression to liberate someone, it doesn’t work out.
This is traditional Marxism, the public owning the MoP is the hallmark of Socialism, and the Proletarian State withers with respect to how collectivized production has become.
“Actually, worker control of the MoP is when a very tiny political elite decides how the MoP is used.”
And of course, the fabled “withering of the state” which can be seen by how the late USSR oligarchy withered into the Russian Federation mafia state!
Marx was certainly no Anarchist
Take a drink every time a tankie randomly stays this.
there can be no Marxism without Public Ownership and
Marx was pretty vague about central planning in his writing in general, and there are arguments that he could have been opposed to it later in his life, this is however irrelevant.
I cannot emphasize enough that I do not care about Marxism, it’s a useful tool for analysis of capital, but Marx lived and died in the 1800s.
It’s time for the socialist movement to move on forward, we can synthesize the old with new information and analysis which waa gained throughout the last 150 years, and create better systems and theories.
The endless discussion on what the “prophet” Marx and Engels wanted us to do are fucking poinltess and furthermore incredibly boring and played out.
There was commodity production in the USSR, yes. That was not the basis of the economy. The basis was on industrialized publicly owned production.
You don’t really make any points regarding this mysterious “ownership class,” just a snide remark about worshipping Marx.
You keep asserting that the Proletarian state was the instrument of oppression of the Proletariat, but make no points as to how or why. Moreover, you make the unjustified claim that the State somehow is Capital, which is fundamentally confused.
Moving on to your next point, the idea that central planning is somehow antithetical to Marxism, I ask why you believe ownership means it cannot be planned by others. Central Planning is a necessity for fully publicly owned economies. Furthermore, the withering of the state can only happen once all production is folded into the public sector at a global scale, and happens with the degree to which production has been collectivized. Government and the “state” are separate, the State is a tool of class oppression while government remains a necessity for administration.
The fact that Marxists correctly point out that Marx was not an advocate for a horizontalist system and instead for full public ownership and central planning doesn’t make this wrong.
Either way, you’re correct that Marx and Engels are not prophetic, which is why Marxism-Leninism has been refined and continued over the many decades by subsequent Marxists like Lenin, and much has been learned through the real existence of AES states. You keep asserting inflexible dogmatism as the core of your complaint when the people you complain about don’t actually exist, just strawmen that haunt you.
In my opinion it has to come from a bottom up movement, that puts emphasis on the sort of types of organization a socialist movement ultimately aims for.
The Leninists tried to disconnect the means and the ends of the movement, using the tools of the bourgeoisie to try and build a new system, which failed.
Marxist-Leninists did not “disconnect means and ends.” The goal of Marxism is liberation of the proletariat, the means of which being working towards Communism, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic free of classes, the state, and money. Marxism-Leninism adds analysis of Imperialism, Capitalism as it spreads internationally (which was not developed yet in Marx’s time), as well as strategic advancements like Democratic Centralism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he wanted full centralization and public ownership, not a horizontal network of Communes. Engels even argued against such a system in Anti-Dühring.
Marxist-Leninists did not “disconnect means and ends.” The goal of Marxism is liberation of the proletariat, the means of which being working towards Communism, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic free of classes, the state, and money.
And it has accomplished exactly 0 of those goals.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he wanted full centralization and public ownership, not a horizontal network of Communes. Engels even argued against such a system in Anti-Dühring.
Marx did not explicitly argue for centralisation. Plus, I do not care what Marx thought.
The divorce of the means and ends of the socialist movement in Russia, after it was betrayed by the bolsheviks is apparent from the results of their rule.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The bolshevik regime, and the systems inspired by it resulted in the oppression for the proletariat.
But in the end, there is no reason to argue with your kind.
You are not capable of critically examining the failings of past movements.
You can always conveniently ignore all critiques of your favorite regimes as “western propaganda” without listening to the accounts of the people who lived under them.
You can always excuse the atrocities and failings of your favorite regimes by vaguely gesturing at “counter revolutionaries” and “foreign interference” without examining them further.
You are toeing the party line of a long dead regime for internet points. Citing Marx and Engels more like prophets than human beings.
I dislike you very much and I hope you get better one day.
Marxist-Leninists have not yet achieved a global Socialist republic yet and therefore not Communism, yes. Marxist-Leninists have thus far succeeded in transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism, but not from Socialism to Communism.
Marx absolutely argued for Centralization. His core argument was that Capitalism’s natural tendency to centralize production laid the foundation for full centralized ownership and planning in common. Your lack of care for Marx doesn’t shift his arguments.
The result of Socialism in Russia and the successful implementation of it resulted in a doubling of life expectancy, the highest literacy rates in the world, an end to famine, robust safety nets like free and high quality education and healthcare, and massively reduced wealth disparity speak for themselves. No, they were not perfect, but to assert that it is Marxist-Leninists who adhere to dogmatic and uncritical support for Socialism when you yourself make the error of erasing all of the working class victories achieved by the billions of people who have worked towards building Communism is hypocritical and dogmatic. You are correct in saying that the purpose of a system is what it does, when we analyze Socialism in the USSR, we see an incredibly dramatic and directed improvement in the real lives of the Proletariat and Peasantry.
You spend over half of your comment building up and attacking a strawman, then directly attacking me as though I am the strawman you created. I really hope that at some point you spend more time reading theory and history, as well as more time organizing, than you appear to be doing now.
You have a religious devotion to Stalinism, and as such you’re completely disconnected from reality.
Please, do the world a favor and stop engaging politically.
“Things can only get better if the whole world is under one big totalitarian government, and then the totalitarian government will disappear on its own, I promise bro!” is not at all appealing or logical to anyone who isn’t already indoctrinated into your faith.
Not a single Marxist has claimed the government will disappear, only the State. The State, of course, is the element of Government that contributes to class distinctions, ie Private Property Rights. With the folding of all property into the Public Sector, there exists no need for such private property rights or special bodies of armed men protecting them. What remains is the “Administration of Things,” ie a government for all intents and purposes but clearly distinct from the form it takes in Capitalist and even Socialist society.
You really need to read more theory if you’re going to spend your time fighting leftists, I can’t imagine the extent to which you currently serve as a wrecker for any leftist org you may participate in.
Things I hate were present where I live through half of USSR and then till now, and replaced things even scarier present since the revolution.
Tell me it’s capitalism, mofo, I beg you.
What things are you talking about, “mofo”?
Things you hate? How can it be explained as capitalism if you won’t say what it is.
You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago. It isn’t just a random thing like a superstition. In fact believing capitalism isnt responsible is almost a superstition.
Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I’ve been alive. The system produces a few rich people at one end and a bunch of poor people at the other, that’s what it is meant to do, it’s what it does. It isn’t just an economic system, its the state and media as well.
People aren’t just blaming all their problems on capitalism like some petulant child. There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn’t been for a pretty long time.
Marx proved nothing and debunkednothing , he’s not a scientist, he’s an ideologist and a creator of a cult.
It is exactly that.
That means the balance of power hasn’t changed, or changed in the way that wages stayed flat.
I disagree. Human societies are very complex, and economy is basically an open system. Any reductionist model, like that of Marx, will fail in most cases and kinda work in some.
Clearly you’ve never read Marx, which is unfortunate. If you think Marx is a “reductionist model” then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn’t a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.
Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven’t studied Marx in a meaningful way what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?
You know, an adequate Marxist (I’ve met such, believe it or not) would not argue that it is a reductionist model (every model is, my point was that Marxists apply it universally without feedbacks, for which no model is good) and of course wouldn’t use amount of text as a measure of quality or correctness.
This text doesn’t make sense. I have a strong preference for Marcus Aurelius’ notes and Tao Te Ching over these, if you insist, but Descartes is fine too.
In this case the power of people with interests weighing more on the employer’s side or the worker’s side. I wouldn’t say it’s power of workers, just like wind filling ship’s sails is not ship’s power.
I don’t think anything is strange in intersections.
Thank you for the considerate response.
You might be more well equipped for Marx than you think. The Tao the Ching, and the I Ching are both works of dialectical philosophy. Marxism, when applied correctly, is a fusion of empirical materialism and dialectics. Whenever people new to Marxism struggle with his method, I always recommend the Tao te Ching. People raised with western rational model, like us, struggle with contradiction in our reasoning. Except when it affects our lives directly, our minds reject it. The Tao teaches us to stay with the contradictions, which is what is needed to perform a dialectical analysis, since dialectics is the logic of change, progression, and synthesis, relation and contradiction.
This along with the mention of Marcus Aurelius reminds me of when I first started trying to educate myself, and came across the work of Nick Taleb. Its a bit pitched to the right for my taste these days (although his sterling advice, “don’t be a sucker” is as good advice as you’ll ever get,) but at the time it is what got me into studying philosophy, Meditations was the second philosophy book I ever read. I don’t consider myself a stoic, but I loved that book at one time, as well as the Enchirideon by Epictetus.
Your claim of an imbalance in power between the workers and owners is at least an acknowledgement of Marx’s theories. Maybe you like that balance, lots of people have a fetish for “balance of powers” and maybe there’s something to that. Except the balance can’t be achieved, it always prefers the owners and requires historical amounts of civil unrest to make any reluctant progressive change at all.
I don’t appreciate being told that I’m in a cult, a cult that never existed, and certainly Marx never started one. Its dishonest, but I guess you picked it up somewhere. I def didn’t know what Marx was about before I studied him. Buy now if I don’t know an author, I don’t have to pretend I’m smart or know something I don’t, I just say I don’t know and if I am interested then I study them. Very simple and honest.
Here’s the thing they won’t tell you about Marx: when you’re a worker and you learn to read him, because he’s difficult, you realize that he confirms your experience as a worker and goes deeper. He proves what we suspect but that everyone tells us isn’t true. He removes doubt and provides a way forward –
– and then you study the history of the USSR and other 20th century socialist experiments and the doubt comes back. But Marx was, hands down, the greatest intellectual of the 19th century and should be read and studied by all. Not to indoctrinate into a cult, but to actually open peoples minds to what is possible, and how class rule, throughout history, has worked tirelessly to alienate us from our selves and each other. Capitalism is just the latest and greatest form of class rule.
But a better world is possible!
USSR had a state capitalist economy
The USSR moved out of State Capitalism with the end of the NEP. It is technically correct that they had a State Capitalist economy, but they moved on to a traditional Socialist economy relatively early on.
And also water is dry, the sky is red, and the earth is neither round nor flat, but a klein bottle.
“State Capitalism” is a form of Socialist economy primarily categorized by a State’s participation in a market economy, heavily directing it. The NEP was used early on as the USSR was very underdeveloped, and Marxists believe markets serve as efficient tools for rapidly developing productive forces at lower stages of development. This was shifted away from after the NEP to a more Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned economy characteristic of traditional Marxian Sociailsm. There were still some small markets and small commodity producers, but by far the primary sector of the economy was in the Public Sector.
Socialist economies are when you have commodity production and MOP owned by an ownership class.
👍
“Uhh akshually the proletariat owns the means of production because the state is basically the people.” Please, tell me you don’t actually believe this.
???
The owners of something are the owners of that thing.
Yes, and the owner of the MoP in the USSR was the state, which was controlled by a small political elite.
This creates a class conflict very similar to the conflict under free market capitalism.
https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/this-soviet-world/
Also see https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/soviet-democracy/
Socialist economies are determined by which form of production is primary in an economy, and in the USSR post-NEP this was public ownership and central planning. It is undeniably Socialist from a Marxian analysis, the ownership being the public and therefore the Proletariat, not some obscure “ownership class” that has no bearing in Marxist analysis.
The Proletarian State is the tool of class oppression against the bourgeoisie. This is traditional Marxism, the public owning the MoP is the hallmark of Socialism, and the Proletarian State withers with respect to how collectivized production has become. Marx was certainly no Anarchist, there can be no Marxism without Public Ownership and Central Planning.
This doesn’t mean it wasn’t commodity production.
Not even but you’re too deep in the kool-aid to even understand your own prophet.
And yet, it was a tool of oppression against the proletariat.
Turns out that the state and capital are one and the same, and when you try to use a system of oppression to liberate someone, it doesn’t work out.
“Actually, worker control of the MoP is when a very tiny political elite decides how the MoP is used.”
And of course, the fabled “withering of the state” which can be seen by how the late USSR oligarchy withered into the Russian Federation mafia state!
Take a drink every time a tankie randomly stays this.
Marx was pretty vague about central planning in his writing in general, and there are arguments that he could have been opposed to it later in his life, this is however irrelevant.
I cannot emphasize enough that I do not care about Marxism, it’s a useful tool for analysis of capital, but Marx lived and died in the 1800s.
It’s time for the socialist movement to move on forward, we can synthesize the old with new information and analysis which waa gained throughout the last 150 years, and create better systems and theories.
The endless discussion on what the “prophet” Marx and Engels wanted us to do are fucking poinltess and furthermore incredibly boring and played out.
There was commodity production in the USSR, yes. That was not the basis of the economy. The basis was on industrialized publicly owned production.
You don’t really make any points regarding this mysterious “ownership class,” just a snide remark about worshipping Marx.
You keep asserting that the Proletarian state was the instrument of oppression of the Proletariat, but make no points as to how or why. Moreover, you make the unjustified claim that the State somehow is Capital, which is fundamentally confused.
Moving on to your next point, the idea that central planning is somehow antithetical to Marxism, I ask why you believe ownership means it cannot be planned by others. Central Planning is a necessity for fully publicly owned economies. Furthermore, the withering of the state can only happen once all production is folded into the public sector at a global scale, and happens with the degree to which production has been collectivized. Government and the “state” are separate, the State is a tool of class oppression while government remains a necessity for administration.
The fact that Marxists correctly point out that Marx was not an advocate for a horizontalist system and instead for full public ownership and central planning doesn’t make this wrong.
Either way, you’re correct that Marx and Engels are not prophetic, which is why Marxism-Leninism has been refined and continued over the many decades by subsequent Marxists like Lenin, and much has been learned through the real existence of AES states. You keep asserting inflexible dogmatism as the core of your complaint when the people you complain about don’t actually exist, just strawmen that haunt you.
I fully agree. So when you are against capitalism, what is your alternative that doesn’t devolve into state capitalism?
That’s something you can write a book about.
In my opinion it has to come from a bottom up movement, that puts emphasis on the sort of types of organization a socialist movement ultimately aims for.
The Leninists tried to disconnect the means and the ends of the movement, using the tools of the bourgeoisie to try and build a new system, which failed.
Marxist-Leninists did not “disconnect means and ends.” The goal of Marxism is liberation of the proletariat, the means of which being working towards Communism, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic free of classes, the state, and money. Marxism-Leninism adds analysis of Imperialism, Capitalism as it spreads internationally (which was not developed yet in Marx’s time), as well as strategic advancements like Democratic Centralism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he wanted full centralization and public ownership, not a horizontal network of Communes. Engels even argued against such a system in Anti-Dühring.
And it has accomplished exactly 0 of those goals.
Marx did not explicitly argue for centralisation. Plus, I do not care what Marx thought.
The divorce of the means and ends of the socialist movement in Russia, after it was betrayed by the bolsheviks is apparent from the results of their rule.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The bolshevik regime, and the systems inspired by it resulted in the oppression for the proletariat.
But in the end, there is no reason to argue with your kind.
You are not capable of critically examining the failings of past movements.
You can always conveniently ignore all critiques of your favorite regimes as “western propaganda” without listening to the accounts of the people who lived under them.
You can always excuse the atrocities and failings of your favorite regimes by vaguely gesturing at “counter revolutionaries” and “foreign interference” without examining them further.
You are toeing the party line of a long dead regime for internet points. Citing Marx and Engels more like prophets than human beings.
I dislike you very much and I hope you get better one day.
Marxist-Leninists have not yet achieved a global Socialist republic yet and therefore not Communism, yes. Marxist-Leninists have thus far succeeded in transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism, but not from Socialism to Communism.
Marx absolutely argued for Centralization. His core argument was that Capitalism’s natural tendency to centralize production laid the foundation for full centralized ownership and planning in common. Your lack of care for Marx doesn’t shift his arguments.
The result of Socialism in Russia and the successful implementation of it resulted in a doubling of life expectancy, the highest literacy rates in the world, an end to famine, robust safety nets like free and high quality education and healthcare, and massively reduced wealth disparity speak for themselves. No, they were not perfect, but to assert that it is Marxist-Leninists who adhere to dogmatic and uncritical support for Socialism when you yourself make the error of erasing all of the working class victories achieved by the billions of people who have worked towards building Communism is hypocritical and dogmatic. You are correct in saying that the purpose of a system is what it does, when we analyze Socialism in the USSR, we see an incredibly dramatic and directed improvement in the real lives of the Proletariat and Peasantry.
You spend over half of your comment building up and attacking a strawman, then directly attacking me as though I am the strawman you created. I really hope that at some point you spend more time reading theory and history, as well as more time organizing, than you appear to be doing now.
This discussion is boring.
You have a religious devotion to Stalinism, and as such you’re completely disconnected from reality.
Please, do the world a favor and stop engaging politically.
“Things can only get better if the whole world is under one big totalitarian government, and then the totalitarian government will disappear on its own, I promise bro!” is not at all appealing or logical to anyone who isn’t already indoctrinated into your faith.
Not a single Marxist has claimed the government will disappear, only the State. The State, of course, is the element of Government that contributes to class distinctions, ie Private Property Rights. With the folding of all property into the Public Sector, there exists no need for such private property rights or special bodies of armed men protecting them. What remains is the “Administration of Things,” ie a government for all intents and purposes but clearly distinct from the form it takes in Capitalist and even Socialist society.
You really need to read more theory if you’re going to spend your time fighting leftists, I can’t imagine the extent to which you currently serve as a wrecker for any leftist org you may participate in.