CutieBootieTootie [she/her]

Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion

Also what the fuck even is this, this is illegible. Who fucking cares, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about; are you saying that your imagined form of analysis you’ve named dialectical materialism is more meaningful than statistical facts showing widespread approval? That’s nakedly really stupid, even if you’re clearly an anticommunist it’s feeble to try and hide it behind an absurdly thin veneer of Marxism. Just be honest and say you’re a liberal, or start engaging with Michael Parenti’s work.

Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control

Socialism is not the electrification of Russia

as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.

Yeah, clearly, but you haven’t proven it at all. The revolutionary conditions of the PRC have made it so that regular working people can engage with their government in ways impossible in the liberal world, I know from my own experience of being there and from studies like this one from famously CCP Elite backed Harvard which shows that the great masses of people are satisfied in their governance and feel engaged.

You can imply and say all day without evidence that the world’s largest socialist country is purely in the hands of a ruling elite which comprises it’s own economic class separate from the working class people it represents, but it doesn’t make it true.

Honestly real, can’t even blame u for that

Am I crazy or are these comments clearly written by AI too lol

Theory? Marxism?

If you engaged with these things in practice and not from a chair you’d understand that something like true education is nonsensical. What defines true education? Marxism is not concerned with that. Marxism is concerned with what’s effective at creating a better world, a better people, a better society. Something as abstract as true education has no basis in Materialism because it is an idealistic way to view the world.

I think it’s telling that you jump to assumption lumping in the PRC with reactionary states. It’s a chauvanistic way to view a very real and flawed but still developing and strengthening socialist project that shines as a beacon of hope in modern history for it’s ability to lift more than a billion people out of the most inhuman conditions.

Ultimately only time can tell the effects of this policy, but if hearts and minds are changed towards socialism again it will be because of it’s material successes, not the PRC’s ability to “brainwash” people.

Damn sometimes I forget how intellectualizing Americans will talk about the largest socialist country on the planet. Literally doing the “at what cost” meme lol

I’ll say it, even if what you’re saying is true, it’s true of all states, and it’s good and proper that the PRC reinforces a socialist worldview through it’s education. What’s the alternative?

Marxist Leninists are defined primarily by two principles:

• Anti Imperialism / Internationalism
• Defense and Construction of Socialism

It means that the Soviet Union was chiefly responsible for ending the Holocaust and supporting liberation struggles around the world. It means Cuba was able to transform itself from a strip-farmed slave and prostitution hell into a Democratic republic governed meaningfully by the Cuban people with dignity and education for all. All across east Asia it’s secured home rule and governments who meaningfully care and are comprised by regular working and peasant peoples. Marxism Leninism is the historical force which has been shown to be most able to grapple with the complex realities of our world dominated by white supremacy and capitalism, and fought back.

It’s the reason that the supposed atrocities commuted by socialist countries are minor compared to the grand historic crimes of empires like France, Britain, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. Mistakes are made and have been made by socialist countries, sure, of course; but they were the first nations to attempt to meaningfully house people for the sake of housing. They were the first projects to successfully overthrow colonialism, and to raise literacy rates to an absurd degree even higher than in the United States today. These socialist projects need to defend themselves because very few other historical forces have shown anywhere near the potential to make a better world.

So call it whatever you like, it’ll never erase the monumental good it’s done for the world.

THIS is why people have a problem with Anti-Communists

Statistics from 80 days into a ~460 day genocide, Gaza, 2025

Cool desktop, but the term ricing has roots in anti-asian racism, you should change the title or else your post’ll probably get taken down

How did you make this???

I think you raise some interesting points but I think that this just falls back into the failures of prefiguration and expecting resistance and revolution to grow out of an “organic” movement.

If we require prefiguration for our organizational forms, i.e. that we try and create the world that we want in miniature in the organizations we create, then we’ll largely fail without a greater strategic basis. This is the thesis of If We Burn by Vincent Bevins, which goes into how these tenets of prefiguration for our organizations lead to them being ultimately too flexible and loose to take hold of national revolutionary crisises which better-led movements are able to take to their advantage.

This just sounds like the age old problem of relying and requiring “organic” growth to happen. It’ll happen, it’ll get us far, but it has absolutely never been shown on a large national scale to get us far enough to lead to a revolutionary overthrow of society. The party justifies itself by being a conscious organ for working class people to collect knowledge, theory, and practice under one roof which is able to coordinate itself and operate outside the bounds of what would be “organic” or occur naturally otherwise. It doesn’t exist at the exclusion of organic left-wing growth, as that’s very necessary, but instead represents a section of this organic growth which is then conscious of itself and able to operate outside the bounds previously thought possible.

Am I understanding this all correctly?

I have to say my familiarity with NVNH is very surface level, as in I have no familiarity with it, but this concept of trying to create a “protocol” for safe, effective, and strong communication and cooperation between different people and groups sounds like the purpose of a socialist party. For example, a reason for a socialist party to exist is to give people from these different groups to sit down in one space, talk, compare notes, resolve tensions within working class communities for greater cooperation, etc. Am I wrong in saying that?

deleted by creator