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? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!

  • 28 Posts
  • 9.76K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 31st, 2023

help-circle

  • NATO encirclement implies encirclement. Why do you think Russia is going to war in the first place? I don’t trust everything Russia says, I think de-Nazification is a convenient narrative given the presence of Azov and other groups, but isn’t the driving factor of the war (though is part of it). NATO encirclement is a known tactic, as NATO has origins as an anti-Communist, pro-Imperialist group that was formed to attack the USSR, and had Nazis such as Adolf Heusinger in charge. This is readily available information, from Operation GLADIO to Heusinger’s Nazi past.

    Why do you think Russia is going to war? What do they gain at the costs associated with the war?



  • There’s also the factor of the Euromaidan coup, NATO encirclement of Russia, and the Ukranian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk at play. Russia, more than anything, wants Ukraine to either be fully demillitarized or forced into NATO neutrality, and has the means to continue whether Ukraine wants it to or not. If Russia genuinely wanted to, it could keep going until Ukraine is just Russian territory, but I doubt that will end up being the case.

    It isn’t a moral problem, but a question of who holds the cards. Ukraine can make its loss more devastating for both sides, but has no real path to victory. It is better to sue for peace before more damage is done and lives are lost, clearly Russia is fine to continue as long as it needs to in order to secure its interests.











  • This is a common talking point among non-Marxists, hence why the other user implied you haven’t read theory. The thing is, Marx didn’t think abolition of Private Property was the goal of Communism, but one of the essential means of getting there. However, this does not mean it should be dogmatically over-applied at all stages in development, to the contrary, Marx’s entire prediction for Communism (and prediction it was, he didn’t design Communism and work backwards, but analyzed Capitalism and predicted what comes next) is based on how markets centralize over time into large trusts.

    The goal of Communism is real improvements for the Working Class, the tools we should apply depends on what we are working with. Private Property and competition is a great way to quickly develop productive forces at lower stages of development, while Public Ownership and planning becomes more efficient once competition begins to die out. It’s like growing a vegetable and harvesting it, you watch over it and fold it into the public sector as it grows.

    Private Property, like fire, is dangerous if not contained. This doesn’t mean we cannot contain it. If we understand how it functions, we can learn how to use it to better pave the way for eliminating it altogether. As an example, whoever controls the rubber ball factories has far less power than those who control the rubber factory. In the PRC, the overwhelming majority of large industry is in the hands of the government, as well as heavy industry like steel, banking, energy, and more. This is how the government holds Capitalists in line.

    Overall, Marxists don’t apply a magical property to public ownership where being poor working in the public sector is better than bring well-off in the private. The fact is, systems must adapt to their present conditions, and change as those conditions change. The PRC, as an example, is seeing a dramatic rise in the cooperative sector of the economy from the Private, and while this isn’t the same as the Public Sector, it is a decrease in the power of Capitalists.

    If you want, I can recommend some theory you can read to understand the why of Communism according to Marx and Engels.






  • That’s pretty clearly not what I was saying. I mean talk to transgender people and ask how they feel about constantly suspecting either transgender people you disagree with politically are lying about being trans, or that Russia and China are trying to manipulate them. This is directly undermining and delegitimizing trans expression online, rule number 1 of being a trans ally is to not undermine people that say they are trans.

    They are trans because they say they are, yes. It is nobody’s place to judge, this kind of thinking that you can be the arbiter of who is or isn’t trans is transphobic.

    As for Russia and China, they are in different leagues socially, Russia is far worse while one of the top celebrities in China, Jin Xing, is trans. This would be unheard of in Russia. Moreover, you assert full belief in them “pushing the transgender topic,” despite no evidence whatsoever, beyond “do you think they wouldn’t?” We know the US pushes anticommunism, this is well-documented, and moreover isn’t related to gender identity but blanket opposition.

    You are accused of not being an ally because, frankly, you do the job of transphobes for them. You play right into MAGA Q-Anon hands.


  • Internationalism does not need to be separate from local improvements, but internationalism must be a focus to avoid PatSocs.

    As for the purges and famines, the highest estimates from credible sources put the death toll of the Great Purge at no more than 700,000, and the famines weren’t intentional, and moreover were ended by the Soviets in a country that had regular famine before collectivization. That’s why I question the “millions” numbers.

    I don’t think we need to dwell on Stalin, your take isn’t entirely divorced from reality like many others tend to be, though I would recommend reading into Soviet Democracy.

    Tax rates aren’t the same as social services, you’ll see dramatic drop-offs after the USSR fell in both.

    The vast majority of what is consumed in the Nordics is created in the Global South, and again, these countries engage in usury relationships with the Global South. China does not engage in the same kind of relationships in quantitative or qualitatively equivalent means, as they focus on exporting commodities.

    Ultimately, I’d recommend looking more into critiques of the Nordic Model.