Cowbee [he/they]

Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us

He/him or they/them, doesn’t matter too much

Marxist-Leninist ☭

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!

  • 8 Posts
  • 478 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 31st, 2023

help-circle
  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlJust baffling
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 minutes ago

    What does “left” mean to you? What did it originally mean when it first became a phrase, and how does that apply to modern times? Again, I may be a Marxist, but this is a dominant viewpoint outside of highly western, liberal publications, and it isn’t just Marxists that have this understanding of right and left. Trying to equate my logic to anti-vaxx movements is just a baseless jab that avoids answering the arguments I made.











  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhere would you draw the line?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    China’s working conditions are steadily improving, so that’s not really a big problem, plus a huge amount of commodities are either produced in the global south by imperialist companies from the global north outsourcing labor, or from imperialist countries using resources carved out of the global south. You can boycott the worst companies, but you are forced to interact with most under capitalism. Better to be made in a socialist country like China than directly support imperialism.

    The best you can do is to boycott what you can, and join an org, so you can hopefully be a part of the solution. PSL is a good option if you live in the US, but do research on what orgs have local chapters for you.





  • I already explained elsewhere that it isn’t a binary, what’s important is which is the principle aspect, public or private ownership. There are elements of private property in socialism, and elements of public in capitalism.

    Cooperatives do not eliminate the need for eventual full public ownership. Cooperatives are still based on competition and profit, not fulfilling needs. As cooperatives grow and develop, they will form monopolies, long past when coherent planning and public ownership becomes more efficient at fuflilling needs and growth.

    Further, we as the workers cannot restructure capitalism. Capitalism is dominated by capital. In order for workers to have genuine power over the system, we need control of the state, large firms, and key industries, without ownership we cannot pivot to a cooperative society to begin with. Political economic systems are not thoughts in your head, recipes to be picked out, but real, material things, and as such what comes next will be what our current system is economically compelled towards. As centralization is a key side-effect of capitalism, common, collective ownership and planning is what will come next, after revolution sped up by capitalism’s own drive for disparity.

    Ultimately, you have a very idealist, utopian view, and not a materialist, scientific view. That’s why you’re running into opposition so heavily.


  • It isn’t a binary. Elements of private property exist in socialism, and elements of public property exist in capitalism. What matters most is which is the principle aspect of the economy. Liberalism stands for the current, capitalist system, but usually argues for minor modifications. That lands it squarely in the right-wing side.


  • Cooperatives are neither left nor right. They do not fundamentally change property relations, in that they are based on private property and petite bourgeois class relations. Cooperatives can be part of early socialism, like Huawei in the PRC or the agricultural sectors in the USSR and PRC, or they can be a part of capitalist systems like Mondragon in Spain. At best, they could be considered quasi-socialist.

    The reason why “fixing laws about investing” isn’t really “left” is because it doesn’t alter the base mode of production of society. It keeps capitalism intact, it just tweaks how you interact with it. This makes it less right wing than, say, Nazi Germany, but it doesn’t make it left, either.


  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlJust baffling
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    I have a Marxist PoV, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, but that isn’t why liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is right-wing because it is based on private property rights as the centerpoint, and that is the status quo. Maintaining the current status quo is a right-wing, conservative point of view, while the revolutionary, progressive point of view is in socialized ownership.

    The definitions you keep linking are from liberal organizations that are benefited by constraining the window of political economic discussion to the confines of capitalist viewpoints. Often, they rely on the Overton Window, which is about what is considered more progressive or reactionary in a given window by the median opinion, ie if you have 100 people in a room, 3 are communists, 67 are bog-standard liberals, and 30 are conservative liberals, then by the Overton Window, you’d have 50 on the left and 50 on the right, with most liberals on the left. However, this erases the actually increasing momentum for socialism, and hides the fact that 97 people in the room are for the current system plus tweaks, and only 3 are for radical change.

    The origin of the terms “left” began in France, when capitalism and liberalism were revolutionary, and monarchism was the status quo. We are far beyond the time when liberalism is capable of being seen as revolutionary, however, most of the world is dominated by private property. It is now socialism that is revolutionary, and it has been so for centuries.

    I’ve provided a more nuanced, thorough, and complete analysis than you have, which is why other users are suggesting you listen to me. I can recommend some good works on political economic theory, if you’d like. There’s a difference between nuance, and vibes, and you’ve relied heavily on vibes over nuance.


  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mltoScience Memes@mander.xyzRIP America
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Deeply unserious managers of empire continue to self-cannibalize their own productivity in an effort to go even more all-in on financial capital, all while the global south is doing its best to pivot towards more favorable relations with countries like China. When the US Empire runs out of countries to exploit, and financial capital ceases to be profitable, it will have no developed industrial base nor a strong scientifically trained worker base to pull itself back up. The US is cooked, this is just speedrunning the demise of the empire in a faster and harder fashion.

    The good news is that the worse this gets, the more favorable the conditions for organizing become, and the more vulnerable to revolution the state becomes. We can legitimately take advantage of this, and gain mastery over capital, rather than the inverse. We can re-industrialize, become socialist, and begin the long and difficult but necessary path towards legitimate progress. It won’t be easy, but it will be doable.