You people have good luck with this? I haven’t. I don’t find that you can just “trick” people into believing in socialism by changing the words. The moment if becomes obvious you’re criticizing free markets and the rich and advocating public ownership they will catch on.
Correct, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
Being honest with what you want and why has a far better track record, we see this in Socialist revolutions and in mg own personal experience with outreach.
I have the rather controversial opinion that the failure of communist parties doesn’t come down the the failure of crafting the perfect rhetoric or argument in the free marketplace of ideas.
Ultimately facts don’t matter because if a person is raised around thousands of people constantly telling them a lie and one person telling them the truth, they will believe the lie nearly every time. What matters really is how much you can propagate an idea rather than how well crafted that idea is.
How much you can propagate an idea depends upon how much wealth you have to buy and control media institutions, and how much wealth you control depends upon your relations to production. I.e. in capitalist societies capitalists control all wealth and thus control the propagation of ideas, so arguing against them in the “free marketplace of ideas” is ultimately always a losing battle. It is thus pointless to even worry too much about crafting the perfect and most convincing rhetoric.
Control over the means of production translates directly to political influence and power, yet communist parties not in power don’t control any, and thus have no power. Many communist parties just hope one day to get super lucky to take advantage of a crisis and seize power in a single stroke, and when that luck never comes they end up going nowhere.
Here is where my controversial take comes in. If we want a strategy that is more consistently successful it has to rely less on luck meaning there needs to be some sort of way to gradually increase the party’s power consistently without relying on some sort of big jump in power during a crisis. Even if there is a crisis, the party will be more positioned to take advantage of it if it has already gradually built up a base of power.
Yet, if power comes from control over the means of production, this necessarily means the party must make strides to acquire means of production in the interim period before revolution. This leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that communist parties must engage in economics even long prior to coming to power.
The issue however is that to engage in economics in a capitalist society is to participate in it, and most communists at least here in the west see participation as equivalent to an endorsement and thus a betrayal of “communist principles.”
The result of this mentality is that communist parties simply are incapable of gradually increasing their base of power and their only hope is to wait for a crisis for sudden gains, yet even during crises their limited power often makes it difficult to take advantage of the crisis anyways so they rarely gain much of anything and are always stuck in a perpetual cycle of being eternal losers.
Most communist parties just want to go from zero to one-hundred in a single stroke which isn’t impossible but it would require very prestine conditions and all the right social elements to align perfectly. If you want a more consistent strategy of getting communist parties into power you need something that doesn’t rely on such a stroke of luck, any sort of sudden leap in the political power of the party, but is capable of growing it gradually over time. This requires the party to engage in economics and there is simply no way around this conclusion.
i agree that we shouldnt be dishonest about it, socialists have to be openly socialist, i just think the terminology we use is kind of shitty and outdated. ‘elites’ certainly rolls off the tongue better than ‘burgeoisosdisoie’ and means just about the same thing, except its already on peoples vocabulary.
Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”
As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.
As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR. I don’t see what is “backfiring,” if you could elaborate on that I’d appreciate it. The thing is, the USSR broadly got many things unquestionably correct. They also had missteps, and we can learn from those just as much as we can from their achievements. The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
As for reading theory and “dogmatism,” this is indeed a problem, but not as big a problem as avoiding theory. You might find it fitting to start with Oppose Book Worship, which deals with just the problem of overly-dogmatic comrades that only ever read theory. You must read theory and test it via practice, each informs the other.
As for new theory, there is new analysis all the time! Much of older theory absolutely holds up, especially Marx and Lenin, but new theory exists too. I am currently reading Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism, which analyzes the modern form of the US Empire and how it extracts wealth as a debtor country. The reading list I made has older theory I consider essential, as well as newer works.
One might say that Marx is like Newton, describing/discovering many things and setting a foundation for their field. Saying “we shouldn’t read Newton because his stuff is old” or that his ideas are wrong simply because they are old is ludicrous. Both of them probably had things they got wrong, sure, and newer theory corrects this, but they still set the foundations.
While one might not read Newton directly in school, so for some Marxist theory it is too (see Elementary Principles of Philosophy teaching DiaMat), but Marxs books that haven’t been superseded in this way should still be read.
Fantastic way of putting it! People have iterated on Marx and Lenin, but the basic building blocks were first set by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and as a consequence modern theorists use those tools in new conditions. You must still engage with these tools to have a better idea of how they apply to modern contexts.
Similarly: Saying we shouldn’t read theory, is akin to saying we shouldn’t learn science. You are going to have a very difficult time doing particle physics if you have no understanding of the world. Exactly as we say that without theory you are just going to be redoing the same stuff, so would every scientist have to rediscover the basics.
100%, excellent point comrade. For any onlookers, the concept she is describing here is the foundation of Marx’s notion of Scientific Socialism, analyzing human development as a science like any other in order to master its trajectories. Just like fire was once dangerous and sporadic for cavemen, the advancements in understanding how to start and control fire leaped development forward. So too can mastering the laws of human societal progression and organization.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR.
Learning from their mistakes. Not emulating a failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
I don’t see what is “backfiring,”
Americans fear the word “socialism” because they associate it with brutal authoritarian dictatorships. Your love of Lenin and the USSR isn’t helping with that.
The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
The only thing the PRC learned was to abandon socialism. Canada is more socialist than the PRC.
You keep linking books to read. I think we’ve read enough. It’s time to start writing.
The USSR wasn’t a “failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship,” though. They democratized the economy, ended famine in a country where that was regular, over tripled literacy rates from the low 30s to 99.9%, dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth, defeated the Nazis, proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and more.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided. If we are to establish Socialism, we must be honest about it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics. Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses. Canada, on the other hand, is driven by private property and Imperialism.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes. This is throwing away perfectly good tools, and is what doomed the SRs in Russia and why the Bolsheviks succeeded.
dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth
They were ended by the very corruption and wealth inequality you claim they lowered.
defeated the Nazis,
With the help of capitalist empires.
proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well
It did not work well.
provided free and high quality healthcare and education
We do that in Canada, too.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided.
Yet you dismiss everything bad ever said about the USSR as “Red Scare propaganda” to conveniently throw it under the bed and avoid it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics.
China has banks. Stock markets. Billionaires. Absolutely nothing about their economy is socialist or is driven by marxism.
You can’t back these statements up with any evidence. You just make bold proclamations and assert them as true because you said they were, and if anyone doubts you they just have to “read theory”.
Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses.
None of what you just said here is true.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes.
Yes, but unfortunately you have dismissed everything you have read as “Red Scare propaganda”, or likely “Yellow fever propaganda”.
They had democracy. Read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, or read this infographic:
They did not deliberately cause famine. There is no reason for this in the first place, as that weakened their economy and starved millions.
The Soviet Union was not ended because it lowered wealth inequality. Wealth inequality was lowered until after the Socialist system dissolved. What caused the dissolution of the USSR was a combination of various factors such as Gorbachev’s liberal reforms ceding power over large firms to Capitalists, a huge amount of GDP spent on the millitary to protect against the US, and the continuing to plan by hand rather than use computers at scale later on as production complicated.
As for defeating the Nazis, there was some degree of assistance from the Allies, but 80% of the combat against the Nazis was done by the Soviets. They outweighed the contributions of every other allied power combined, by several times.
As for the economy, it worked very well, actually, until later on in its life. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? and looking at the following data on GDP growth:
Canada has some safety nets, sure. I never said you cannot have safety nets without Socialism, we were talking about the effectiveness of the Soviet Union, which had those safety nets before Canada despite being lower in development levels than Canada.
I don’t actually dismiss everything bad about the Soviet Union as propaganda, only propaganda. I have quite a few critiques of the USSR in this comment alone, however it’s hard to discuss the genuine faults when your view of the USSR is based in fiction.
China indeed has private property and banks, even billionaires, however the economy is driven by Public Ownership. Marx spoke about how the large firms were to be nationalized, and that small firms would be nationalized as they developed, gradually. This is because of Marx’s concept of Historical Materialism and Socialism as an economic inevitability as time progresses. You yourself have been railing against theory, why should anyone trust your opinion on Marxism?
Everything I said about the PRC is true, though.
I never needlessly or dogmatically dismissed anything, and unlike you I brought reciepts. The important issue here is your repeated unwillingness to look at facts, simply denying them without offering anything to support your claims or debunk mine. There’s nothing to work off of that way.
How about “a tug-of-war between owners and workers for jobs, resources, and technology”
Three examples:
Factory Work and Labour Unions
Early 20th-century factory jobs involved long hours, low pay, and unsafe working conditions. When workers tried to unionize, factory owners often resisted, viewing unionized labour as a threat to profits. This created a direct conflict: owners wanting to keep costs low vs. workers demanding better wages and safer workplaces.
Automation in Warehouses
Warehouses (e.g., Amazon fulfilment centres) are increasingly adopting robotic systems to speed up sorting and packing. Employees might feel pressure to meet higher performance metrics set by a partly automated workflow, while also fearing that further automation will reduce human jobs. Here, the “tug-of-war” is between technological efficiency (and profit) vs. workers’ job security and well-being.
Tech Industry Outsourcing
Companies sometimes outsource tech-related jobs to countries with cheaper labour costs. This lowers expenses for the company but can lead to local layoffs and economic hardship for employees in higher-wage regions. The conflict revolves around the benefit of increased profit margins for the company vs. the material needs of domestic workers who lose their livelihoods.
Lisa’s only mistake was saying yes.
Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.
Proletariat? No, just “worker”.
Bourgeoisie? No, just “elites”.
Capital? “Stuff”. Like how in baseball they say a pitcher’s got good “stuff”. Use your human stuff.
Class Consciousness - “common sense”.
Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.
Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world “materialism”
You people have good luck with this? I haven’t. I don’t find that you can just “trick” people into believing in socialism by changing the words. The moment if becomes obvious you’re criticizing free markets and the rich and advocating public ownership they will catch on.
Correct, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
Being honest with what you want and why has a far better track record, we see this in Socialist revolutions and in mg own personal experience with outreach.
I have the rather controversial opinion that the failure of communist parties doesn’t come down the the failure of crafting the perfect rhetoric or argument in the free marketplace of ideas.
Ultimately facts don’t matter because if a person is raised around thousands of people constantly telling them a lie and one person telling them the truth, they will believe the lie nearly every time. What matters really is how much you can propagate an idea rather than how well crafted that idea is.
How much you can propagate an idea depends upon how much wealth you have to buy and control media institutions, and how much wealth you control depends upon your relations to production. I.e. in capitalist societies capitalists control all wealth and thus control the propagation of ideas, so arguing against them in the “free marketplace of ideas” is ultimately always a losing battle. It is thus pointless to even worry too much about crafting the perfect and most convincing rhetoric.
Control over the means of production translates directly to political influence and power, yet communist parties not in power don’t control any, and thus have no power. Many communist parties just hope one day to get super lucky to take advantage of a crisis and seize power in a single stroke, and when that luck never comes they end up going nowhere.
Here is where my controversial take comes in. If we want a strategy that is more consistently successful it has to rely less on luck meaning there needs to be some sort of way to gradually increase the party’s power consistently without relying on some sort of big jump in power during a crisis. Even if there is a crisis, the party will be more positioned to take advantage of it if it has already gradually built up a base of power.
Yet, if power comes from control over the means of production, this necessarily means the party must make strides to acquire means of production in the interim period before revolution. This leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that communist parties must engage in economics even long prior to coming to power.
The issue however is that to engage in economics in a capitalist society is to participate in it, and most communists at least here in the west see participation as equivalent to an endorsement and thus a betrayal of “communist principles.”
The result of this mentality is that communist parties simply are incapable of gradually increasing their base of power and their only hope is to wait for a crisis for sudden gains, yet even during crises their limited power often makes it difficult to take advantage of the crisis anyways so they rarely gain much of anything and are always stuck in a perpetual cycle of being eternal losers.
Most communist parties just want to go from zero to one-hundred in a single stroke which isn’t impossible but it would require very prestine conditions and all the right social elements to align perfectly. If you want a more consistent strategy of getting communist parties into power you need something that doesn’t rely on such a stroke of luck, any sort of sudden leap in the political power of the party, but is capable of growing it gradually over time. This requires the party to engage in economics and there is simply no way around this conclusion.
i agree that we shouldnt be dishonest about it, socialists have to be openly socialist, i just think the terminology we use is kind of shitty and outdated. ‘elites’ certainly rolls off the tongue better than ‘burgeoisosdisoie’ and means just about the same thing, except its already on peoples vocabulary.
Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”
As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.
As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.
I don’t think we should be emulating Lenin or the USSR. I think that’s what is backfiring.
“Read theory” is how they trick us, forcing us into dogmatic religious-like application of historical texts.
Why don’t we write theory? Marx and Lenin weren’t gods. They got things wrong.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR. I don’t see what is “backfiring,” if you could elaborate on that I’d appreciate it. The thing is, the USSR broadly got many things unquestionably correct. They also had missteps, and we can learn from those just as much as we can from their achievements. The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
As for reading theory and “dogmatism,” this is indeed a problem, but not as big a problem as avoiding theory. You might find it fitting to start with Oppose Book Worship, which deals with just the problem of overly-dogmatic comrades that only ever read theory. You must read theory and test it via practice, each informs the other.
As for new theory, there is new analysis all the time! Much of older theory absolutely holds up, especially Marx and Lenin, but new theory exists too. I am currently reading Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism, which analyzes the modern form of the US Empire and how it extracts wealth as a debtor country. The reading list I made has older theory I consider essential, as well as newer works.
One might say that Marx is like Newton, describing/discovering many things and setting a foundation for their field. Saying “we shouldn’t read Newton because his stuff is old” or that his ideas are wrong simply because they are old is ludicrous. Both of them probably had things they got wrong, sure, and newer theory corrects this, but they still set the foundations.
While one might not read Newton directly in school, so for some Marxist theory it is too (see Elementary Principles of Philosophy teaching DiaMat), but Marxs books that haven’t been superseded in this way should still be read.
Fantastic way of putting it! People have iterated on Marx and Lenin, but the basic building blocks were first set by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and as a consequence modern theorists use those tools in new conditions. You must still engage with these tools to have a better idea of how they apply to modern contexts.
Similarly: Saying we shouldn’t read theory, is akin to saying we shouldn’t learn science. You are going to have a very difficult time doing particle physics if you have no understanding of the world. Exactly as we say that without theory you are just going to be redoing the same stuff, so would every scientist have to rediscover the basics.
100%, excellent point comrade. For any onlookers, the concept she is describing here is the foundation of Marx’s notion of Scientific Socialism, analyzing human development as a science like any other in order to master its trajectories. Just like fire was once dangerous and sporadic for cavemen, the advancements in understanding how to start and control fire leaped development forward. So too can mastering the laws of human societal progression and organization.
Learning from their mistakes. Not emulating a failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
Americans fear the word “socialism” because they associate it with brutal authoritarian dictatorships. Your love of Lenin and the USSR isn’t helping with that.
The only thing the PRC learned was to abandon socialism. Canada is more socialist than the PRC.
You keep linking books to read. I think we’ve read enough. It’s time to start writing.
The USSR wasn’t a “failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship,” though. They democratized the economy, ended famine in a country where that was regular, over tripled literacy rates from the low 30s to 99.9%, dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth, defeated the Nazis, proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and more.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided. If we are to establish Socialism, we must be honest about it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics. Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses. Canada, on the other hand, is driven by private property and Imperialism.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes. This is throwing away perfectly good tools, and is what doomed the SRs in Russia and why the Bolsheviks succeeded.
They had absolutely no democracy.
They deliberately caused famine.
They were ended by the very corruption and wealth inequality you claim they lowered.
With the help of capitalist empires.
It did not work well.
We do that in Canada, too.
Yet you dismiss everything bad ever said about the USSR as “Red Scare propaganda” to conveniently throw it under the bed and avoid it.
China has banks. Stock markets. Billionaires. Absolutely nothing about their economy is socialist or is driven by marxism.
You can’t back these statements up with any evidence. You just make bold proclamations and assert them as true because you said they were, and if anyone doubts you they just have to “read theory”.
None of what you just said here is true.
Yes, but unfortunately you have dismissed everything you have read as “Red Scare propaganda”, or likely “Yellow fever propaganda”.
They had democracy. Read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, or read this infographic:
They did not deliberately cause famine. There is no reason for this in the first place, as that weakened their economy and starved millions.
The Soviet Union was not ended because it lowered wealth inequality. Wealth inequality was lowered until after the Socialist system dissolved. What caused the dissolution of the USSR was a combination of various factors such as Gorbachev’s liberal reforms ceding power over large firms to Capitalists, a huge amount of GDP spent on the millitary to protect against the US, and the continuing to plan by hand rather than use computers at scale later on as production complicated.
As for defeating the Nazis, there was some degree of assistance from the Allies, but 80% of the combat against the Nazis was done by the Soviets. They outweighed the contributions of every other allied power combined, by several times.
As for the economy, it worked very well, actually, until later on in its life. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? and looking at the following data on GDP growth:
Canada has some safety nets, sure. I never said you cannot have safety nets without Socialism, we were talking about the effectiveness of the Soviet Union, which had those safety nets before Canada despite being lower in development levels than Canada.
I don’t actually dismiss everything bad about the Soviet Union as propaganda, only propaganda. I have quite a few critiques of the USSR in this comment alone, however it’s hard to discuss the genuine faults when your view of the USSR is based in fiction.
China indeed has private property and banks, even billionaires, however the economy is driven by Public Ownership. Marx spoke about how the large firms were to be nationalized, and that small firms would be nationalized as they developed, gradually. This is because of Marx’s concept of Historical Materialism and Socialism as an economic inevitability as time progresses. You yourself have been railing against theory, why should anyone trust your opinion on Marxism?
Everything I said about the PRC is true, though.
I never needlessly or dogmatically dismissed anything, and unlike you I brought reciepts. The important issue here is your repeated unwillingness to look at facts, simply denying them without offering anything to support your claims or debunk mine. There’s nothing to work off of that way.
Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Worth noting is that corporate America could have been an Axis power with the sheer amount of crap that it marketed to Europe’s Fascist empires. About $475 million worth of crap (without adjusting for inflation). Likewise, the British Empire was the chief source of many of the Third Reich’s imported raw materials back in the 1930s, during which a Canadian business supplied almost the entire nickel market for it, too.
How about “a tug-of-war between owners and workers for jobs, resources, and technology”
Three examples:
Factory Work and Labour Unions
Early 20th-century factory jobs involved long hours, low pay, and unsafe working conditions. When workers tried to unionize, factory owners often resisted, viewing unionized labour as a threat to profits. This created a direct conflict: owners wanting to keep costs low vs. workers demanding better wages and safer workplaces.
Automation in Warehouses
Warehouses (e.g., Amazon fulfilment centres) are increasingly adopting robotic systems to speed up sorting and packing. Employees might feel pressure to meet higher performance metrics set by a partly automated workflow, while also fearing that further automation will reduce human jobs. Here, the “tug-of-war” is between technological efficiency (and profit) vs. workers’ job security and well-being.
Tech Industry Outsourcing
Companies sometimes outsource tech-related jobs to countries with cheaper labour costs. This lowers expenses for the company but can lead to local layoffs and economic hardship for employees in higher-wage regions. The conflict revolves around the benefit of increased profit margins for the company vs. the material needs of domestic workers who lose their livelihoods.
Too long, I’d suggest “boss-busting”, after “rentbusting”. Or “bosses keeping workers hostage”, maybe?