Socialism takes advanced, industrial production beyond the profit motive and into a consciously planned and pro-social direction. You can have industrial scale without having capitalism.

If you’ve never studied socialism, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic intro to the USSR. Better yet, just listening to the author’s 1986 Lecture is phenomenal.

Marxism-Leninism is an ideological framework. Essentially, it fronts dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, and Marxist political economy as correct. There is no one “Marxist-Leninist form of governance,” just as in real life there is no one universally correct form of governance. However, all of the component parts of Marxism-Leninism are correct, including dialectical materialism, which is the basis of correct scientific analysis and interpretation. It is not a replacement for the scientific method, but a way we understand the world.

What you describe is broadly empiricism. The limits of pure empiricism are that, if we are being truly pure, we do not draw connections between linked phenomena. In other words, we do not assume gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today, because we have not yet tested it. As the world is constantly changing on both a micro and macro scale, this means each test is in fact fresh, with fresh conditions. Empiricism, taken to the extreme, denies this understanding.

Dialectical materialism expands upon empiricism by recognizing the interconnection of everything, and that knowledge is something continuous. As we test the world, we gain a better understanding of it, and therefore the world is always changing so our knowledge is always becoming outdated as long as we are not continuously testing and practicing. Through practice, we gain better knowledge, with which we can better predict what will happen.

There’s nothing spiritual about Marxism-Leninism. Knowledge comes from practice, of course it does. However, without acknowledging that we all have a world outlook, this solidifies what might be incorrect, such as idealism or metaphysics, as has often happened in the field of science.

It’s a communist KDE flag, and it follows suit with other communist flags.

I already said Marxism-Leninism is not a “form of governance.” The fact that you repeat this claim leads me to believe that you aren’t actually reading what I’m writing.

Phikosophy, our world outlook, is already before science. The way we see the world and understand it determines how we view science and perform it. This is why vulgar materialists, as opposed to dialectical materialists, tried to prove race theory correct and thus advocate for eugenics. Science is not neutral. The world around us, the material world, does not care how we interpret it beyond how we change it. However, there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral observer, we all have preconceived biases.

Marxism-Leninism is already scientific, the scientific method is a tool employed by it already. You’re trying to remove science from the context it exists in.

You’re still treating science like it’s not a process gone through by humans. Science once posited that race science was correct in order to justify eugenics. We need to be aware of our world outlook and correct it before we begin to use science, otherwise we come to incorrect conclusions and incorrect propositions. That’s my point.

Marxism-Leninism is correct not because it is a “form of governance” (it isn’t) but because it’s a living social science grounded in scientific understanding of the world.

Science is not independent of philosophy. There’s idealist science, metaphysical science, etc, all of which are wrong. There is no such thing as science without philosophy, because science is an attempt by humans to understand the world. Humans are all philosophers, as we all have a world outlook. By rejecting study of philosophy as it relates to science, you are ignoring preconcieved biases, rather than acknowledging them and correcting the misconceptions.

This is why Marxism-Leninism is correct, and why all science must be done from a dialectical materialist standpoint.

Marxism-Leninism is already heavily based on science, and takes the stance of dialectical materialism as the basis for science and analysis. What’s wrong with scientific socialism as it already exists, in your eyes?

Why? It’s pretty cool!

Communism and FOSS have large overlaps.

Incredible self-own on your part.

You don’t need to be a mod to check the modlog, it’s public information unless the admin or moderator deems the content to be worthy of permanently purging, like CSAM links. In that regard, it would make no sense for me to “create a false narrative,” anyone that wishes to can see what you wrote by checking the moderation history of your comment. Just click the 3 dots on a comment and you can find it.

Either way, calling people “dick riders” and telling them to “shove it up their asses” is only insulting by nature of drawing on social shame towards homosexuality. You can insult people, call them sycophants, etc. without resorting to homophobia and throwing queer people under the bus.

You also seem to be a fan of racism and ableism, going by your other removed comments. Lovely.

Why are reactionaries all so homophobic?

There was never a massacre on Tian’anmen square. Hundreds died in various areas surrounding it in Beijing, but a lie was spread that, when the PLA had made it to the Square itself, they had slaughtered the protestors there. This is the “Tian’anmen Square Massacre,” except this didn’t happen, and even Wikipedia now finally acknowledges this if you check the page. This is why the tragedy is remembered as the June 4th incident in China, because the actual center of the protests, the square itself, was evacuated bloodlessly.

There was never a massacre on Tian’anmen square. Hundreds died in various areas surrounding it in Beijing, but a lie was spread that, when the PLA had made it to the Square itself, they had slaughtered the protestors there. This is the “Tian’anmen Square Massacre,” except this didn’t happen, and even Wikipedia now finally acknowledges this if you check the page. This is why the tragedy is remembered as the June 4th incident in China, because the actual center of the protests, the square itself, was evacuated bloodlessly.

I hope it will, so who knows!

Supportive of private property and capitalism.

You don’t have to be bourgeois to follow bourgeois ideology.

I already answered this over on Late Stage Capitalism, so I’ll just copy and paste my response over here:

I’m sorry, but this just reveals that we aren’t on the same page when it comes to Marxism. Your primary error is with erasing all of the advances of historical materialism and scientific socialism from Marx, and returning it to the utopianism of pre-Marx socialists such as Robert Owen. Essentially, you are treating capitalism as “private property,” socialism as “public property,” and communism as “big socialism.” This is dogmatic, and erases that modes of production are NOT their finite parts, but instead are determined by which aspect of the economy is principal, ie dominant and rising, and which class controls the state.

When you say China is a “mix of capitalism and socialism,” this horrendously misrepresents what a mode of production actually is. In China, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. Huge state industry forms the backbone of the economy, and governs the large firms and key industries. This is because public ownership and planning is more effective at higher levels of development.

The private property that exists in China is relegated to small and medium industries, and highly competitive ones. This is because of the key development in Marxism advancing it beyond utopianism: the form of production suits the level of development of the productive forces. Rather than taking the Utopian path, which was to “model build” and create a system outright, Marx observed that capitalism came from feudalism with the rise in industrialization, and that markets themselves were centralizing, in other words socializing production while keeping profits private!

To return, your position that “the more communist you are, the more you dogmatically collectivize, regardless of level of development” is distinctly anti-Marxist, and moreover was already tried by China! Under the Gang of Four, there became a fetishization of equality in poverty. They were dogmatic in trying to collectivize as much as possible, with little regard for the level of development. Reform & Opening Up was a return to more classical interpretations of Marx, and thus saw a stablization and slight acceleration in development. This strategy and understanding is reflected in Cheng Enfu’s diagram, here:

When Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party, their basic advice to any successful revolution is to nationalize the large firms and key industries, develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible, and gradually nationalize the rest of the economy as it develops. This reflects the exact path the PRC is charting, right now. This is why it’s important to read and understand theory, as if you became a leader of a new socialist country with your current understanding, you’d likely commit the same mistakes as the Gang of Four.

I already said the concept of communism predates Marx. I am not redefining communism to Marxism. OP is asking about socialism and communism as they actually exist and are understood, and further “primitive communism” as described by Marx is misleading and instead is better described as “communalism.”

This is all incredibly hypocritical coming from you as well, considering you were adamant that China had abandoned communism over in this thread. Why are you now trying to say, essentially, that “communism is in the eye of the beholder?”