Sure, I’ll cop to that level of idealism. I think the “human condition” is a real thing we’ve inherited from our evolutionary forebears, and we’re constantly fighting against it. Heck, my main complaint started out as seeing Lemmy MLs as tribalistic to their own detriment. Even if it isn’t truly universal, I don’t think any form of political organization can permanently overcome that.

“Human nature” is most accurately described as formed by our social being. It does not exist outside of that, and isn’t something hardcoded into us. Humanity has, for the longest time, been largely cooperative. It’s mostly a factor of modern class society that negative traits like corruption take hold, it has nothing to do directly with the scale of society. That’s why I try to drive that point home, a scientific analysis of the problem means that we can’t treat human nature as something fixed, static, divorced from our actual lived experience, but instead something that is malleable and based on a given set of material conditions, material conditions we can deliberately change.

Also, yeah, I know that fiction doesn’t describe reality, just the author’s perspective of reality (learned that from Ayn Rand, 🤣 ). Didn’t know that Orwell was anti-semitic (nightmare ick), but the message I took from 1984 was anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-communist. I was taught that the “soc” in Ingsoc was a lie, just as in the Ministry of Truth produced lies and the Ministry of Love produced cruelty. Anyway.

Orwell kept a list of Jews and communists he would use to snitch to feds. In Animal Farm, his entire point about the bolsheviks rests on the assumption that the working classes of Russia are too stupid to understand that they are being duped, as an explanation for why the working classes really did support the bolsheviks in real life. Orwell was all manner of things, but most of all supremely British and liberal (in a bad way).

I also want to reference some things I’ve heard about the USSR and the PRC, but I feel the canned response is that it’s all Western propaganda, and I don’t see a productive outcome of that line of conversation. I have some observations after reading Three Body Problem and my partner’s fandom for MXTX’s light novels, but that’s very anecdotal.

Depends on what you’re talking about. It could be entirely real, entirely invented, an exaggerated real problem, a minimized real success, or a success framed as a problem.

At any rate, I got more of the insight I wanted about Lemmy MLs, and you as always give me a lot to think about, Cowbee <3 I always appreciate your time and patience.

No problem!

You’re confusing the way people behave in some forms of organization with the way people behave in all circumstances and forms of organization. The idea of a universal human nature that exists in static form, outside of its context, is idealism, ie an appeal to the supernatural. Further still, socialist governments and parties have all been very large, the CPC for example has 100 million people.

I don’t personally take much stock in fiction as a means to explain reality. Orwell was an anti-semitic British fed that kept a list of Jews and communists. His projection in Animal Farm and 1984 are taught in western schools for the very reason you are reminded of them, to discourage socialist organizing at a young age.

Read when you gain interest! If you force yourself, you won’t retain any of it, or you’ll take the wrong message.

Yep, right here, I believe.

Administration is not itself a class, and is necessary for any large-scale economy. Marxism opposes capitalism in theory and in practice. Management of industry is not the same as owning said industry. Marxism has never been about eliminating managament, because managers are not a class in and of themselves, but instead a section of the proletariat that perform necessary roles in coordinating production, distribution, and logistics.

Where did you get the idea that Marxists oppose administration from? It certainly isn’t found within Marx and Engels’ writings, without severe misunderstanding. Moreover, you’re displaying black and white thinking in believing administration under socialism is the same as capitalist ownership outright.

Every Western country is a mix of capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism and socialism are modes of production, ie descriptors for the principle aspect of a given economy. Having a public sector does not mean you have a socialist sector, just like having a private sector does not mean you have a capitalist sector. Public sectors in capitalism serve to support the private, and private sectors in socialism support the public. Determining which aspect is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, and which class controls the state, is how we check for capitalism vs. socialism.

The US absolutely should move towards the socialism end but capitalism won’t vanish, most importantly because it’s detractors never offer a viable alternative.

Socialism is a viable alternative, see the PRC, where public ownership is the principle aspect and the working classes control the state.

Pretty much a guarantee that a big chunk of people wasting time and resources on an internet discussion board are in some way benefitting from capitalism.

The English-speaking internet does have a large portion of labor aristocrats, ie those who benefit from super-exploiting the global south, but that doesn’t mean socialism isn’t a necessary advance. Imperialism is decaying, thankfully, which necessitates socialism, not to mention the moral victory.

A less colonialist term for “citizen of the USA.”

Yea, it’s always a tightrope.

Whenever people ask me about politics at work beyond being vaguely progressive

No problem!

That’s a great comment, thanks for linking it! And ReadFanon hit the nail on the head, so to speak, we have to train and practice for revolution, while being cognizant that distrusting any and all formalized structure sets us back, as these formalized structures appear whether we acknowledge them de jure or not. Jo Freeman’s essay is also wonderful for showing how we really need to formalize vanguards, so as to legitimately democratize them and prevent people from naturally dominating the space.

I’ve been thinking for a long time that any large-scale organization will lead to greed, corruption, injustice, et al.

Why? Seriously, think about it. Are you appealing to a supernatural explanation like “human nature,” or a materialist answer? Is the presence of any corruption or greed unacceptable or incapable of countering with structures and checks?

It’s only since I’ve been reading about ML that I learned I lean anarchist. Vanguard parties sound like a bad idea to me.

Why are vanguards a bad idea, in your eyes? The working class should organize, and the most politically advanced should organize in parties. Can you imagine if we refused to let scientists perform research? If we refused to let surgeons handle surgery? Why should revolution be any different? Any long-term, complex project should be led by those who study and train for it.

Copying over @Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 's comment reply to you:

This is a very idealistic view of history. Ideology did not create material conditions, material conditions created ideology (and ideology was used as a tool to reinforce material conditions)

The slavery, genocide, capitalism and colonialism came first. Then liberalism was created to justify it. And I do want to emphasise that all of those 4 things were justified using liberal logic, that was the point of liberal logic.

The first liberals deemed the “unenligtened” to be subhuman, incapable or governing themselves, worthy of being treated like livestock and as fundamental threats to the ruling order. This was their justification for doing everything they did, you can read their writings on native Americans and Africans and see exactly what classical liberalism was all about.

Later waves of liberals ended up using liberal logic to abolish slavery. Great. But the reason they did this was because the capitalist mode of production had superceded the slave mode of production. The surplus of proletariats hated competing with slaves and having their wages be reduced. Meanwhile the northern bourgeoise often had friction with the southern planters since the planters were rentiers extracting wealth from the whole economy like parasites.

Modern liberals now proclaim themselves to be great champions of “liberty” (the liberty for the bourgeoise to buy property), but they by in large continue to support capitalism and western imperialism*. And frankly, why wouldn’t they? That was what the ideology was created for.

*you can see this in their insistence upon using “white man’s burden” arguments whenever foreign intervention comes up

I’m both a Statesian and a communist, sure.

If you want to learn about Marxism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. I’ll also copy over @Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 's reply to you, which you cannot see:

Engels and lenin had good writings for beginners. You might want to read principles of communism, or state and revolution to get some basic context and theory. The first one is structured like an FAQ and is short. The latter you can find english translations that are quite accessible.

Once you understand the basic principles of marxism, you will understand just how different the whole philosophy really is. If you get deep into the theory, you might see that Marxism is basically a whole separate branch of philosophy that breaks away from the enlightened tradition of western philosophy. In some small sense, I see Marxism as a refuation of liberalism.

Sadly .world accounts won’t see this.

MLs have a lot to be frustrated about. We advocate organizing in real life, which has its own frustrations, and when most people are still supportive of capitalism it’s a constant uphill battle. We arn’t angsty edgelords using ML as an excuse, but often tired and drained because we are MLs, leading to many of us lashing out.

Liberalism is the ideology supportive of capitalism. Marxism is supportive of socialism. I think it’s important to recognize that liberalism was driven by capitalists to fight the aristocracy while justifying their own future rule.

Yes, being fine with the system of capitalism and all it entails when it’s clear that we need to advance to socialism is a problem.

No pressure!