• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 16th, 2023

help-circle






  • Transnistria is a thousand miles from Odessa, twice as far as St. Petersberg, and Pskov is about 400 miles away.

    Vibes, vibes, vibes.

    No. The material reality is that Transnistria is roughly 100–150 km from Odessa and not the thousand miles being claimed.

    Pskov is near the Estonian border, and St. Petersburg is on the Baltic Sea. Neither of these cities is close to Moldova, so they are largely irrelevant to any invasion plans in that region.

    It’s important to rely on concrete conditions and verifiable data rather than hyperbolic claims and vibing.



  • Under this deal, Putin gets to annex key territories while Ukraine is kept out of NATO and left without American peacekeepers, forcing Europe to buy U.S. military gear. Imperialist powers divide and weaken working people by keeping nations in chaos and under constant threat. This brief period of “peace” isn’t for long as capitalist interests allow Russia to regroup and rearm. Ukraine remains in a disordered, free-for-all state under imperialist influences. In time, this setup could let Russia launch an invasion through Odessa to connect with Transnistria.



  • In the U.S., everything is right wing and there are no liberals. The Overton window in the U.S. is so far to the right that even basic civil rights, democracy, and freedoms that exist elsewhere are seen as radical.

    Right-wingers and capitalists have rebranded their system as “neoliberalism,” pretending it is about freedom. But real freedom: civil rights and human rights, democracy, secularism, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion… they cannot exist under capitalism, where a small class rules over the majority. True democracy means workers control society, not just picking which capitalist will exploit them.





  • The state is supposed to wither away as the working class takes control of production. Engels and Marx argued that the state, under capitalism, is a tool for maintaining class divisions, and this should end in socialism.

    Socialism requires large-scale planning, but the key difference is that it must be managed democratically by workers, not a central bureaucracy. Lenin criticized the Soviet bureaucracy because it hindered true worker control.

    The USSR state managed the economy without giving workers control. Even after the NEP, the state still controlled production without real worker participation.

    For Marx, socialism means the working class collectively controls the economy, which wasn’t realized in the Soviet system. While there were gains, they came from a centralized authority, not workers themselves.

    Despite state planning, the Soviet system concentrated power in the hands of a few.


  • Socialism is direct rule by the working class where the state fades away, as Engels described. A state acting as a proxy concentrates power in a minority and keeps workers from controlling production. Marx argued that the proletariat must destroy the old state machinery, not rely on it to act for them. The Soviet state kept a hierarchical structure that directed workers rather than enabling their control.

    Material benefits do not prove workers were in control. Marx warned that state capitalism could produce growth while keeping power out of workers’ hands. Lenin himself criticized the growing Soviet bureaucracy after 1917. By the 1920s, workers’ councils had lost power to the Party and state officials. Gains can exist under exploitation if workers do not democratically run production.

    Dialectical analysis means critically studying contradictions in a system. The USSR had contradictions like inequality and bureaucracy, which Marx predicted under state capitalism. Marxism evolves through testing theory against reality, not just following the majority, even when it challenges what many believe as socialism.


  • Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.

    Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.


  • One of the key aspects of Marxism isn’t just about state control or central planning, it’s about the active involvement of the working class in managing production and society. If a state is controlled by a small elite, even if it calls itself socialist, it risks becoming a form of state capitalism rather than true worker control.

    This isn’t about rigid, dogmatic labels which I can’t help but notice in your assumptions of me. What is interesting is understanding material conditions and power structures. Discussing any state, does it give the workers control or whether it serves a centralized elite.

    I’m not claiming that any state is “false” without evidence. It’s an examination of how power operates in those states and whether it matches the idea of socialism where workers are in control. Doesn’t Marxist analysis require questioning these things, not simply accepting a label?


  • In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting “on their behalf.” State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.

    As for beliefs, Marx’s critique of religion as “the opiate of the masses” doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.

    As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.