You keep saying “word salad,” but that doesn’t really follow.

In what way is the interconnection of production and distribution increasing? Why is that contradictory with the concentration of profits into fewer and fewer hands? Our systems of production and distribution have been getting increasingly complex since the middle ages and yet the concentration of wealth has certainly ebbed and flowed in time. In what way are you suggesting one affects the other?

A contradiction is the unity and struggle of opposing tendencies. Using the example of production and distribution increasing in interconnectivity (a process made certain by the growth of capital outward, turning all non-capitalist production into new capital ripe for production and appropriation), this is what creates the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This creates a struggle between the international working classes and the imperialists, as production is socialized but the profits are still privately appropriated. Negating this concentration means socializing ownership.

This is not a profound statement. It has literally always been the case since society has existed. The system of imperialism in the city states of antiquity died and gave way to the imperialism of the classical empires, which gave way to the imperialism of the feudal monarchies, and then the nation states, and the colonial empires, and so on to the capitalist economic imperialism of today.

This isn’t really true, though. Roman imperialism dying away gave rise to feudalism, not to imperialism again. Imperialism has only really developed as an incredibly high level of development of a given mode of production.

Post-imperial? I doubt that and you have provided no evidence that that would be the case. It seems to me that the economic imperialism of the Western nation states is in transition to some kind of fascist corporate techno-feudalist imperialism.

As the global south develops, and socialist countries like China continue to grow and develop, the method of unequal exchange is being undermined. Western fascism is them bringing austerity home to cover for the loss in gains from imperialism, and the waves of wars to open new markets is an attempt to rescue imperialism.

And again, how does this relate to the distribution of wealth and systems of production of distribution? It’s not big and it’s not clever to say they are related because the fact that everything is related everything else is basically axiomatic of the system of analysis. You have to point out how.

As capitalism grows, rates of profit gradually tend to fall. This is fought by raising absolute profits, which requires growth, which results in outward expansion. This forces countries into economic inter-dependence and trade, at the barrel of a gun, but this interconnection alao provides the basis of futute cooperation.

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

You didn’t explain that.

Which answers, exactly? Because the answer always seems to be the downfall of capitalism and to be replaced by socialism and then communism. And when that continues to not happen, the response always seems to be “but it totes will, eventually.” That isn’t analysis, that’s a teleological belief.

I don’t follow, socialism is rising, the largest economy in the world by PPP is socialist. The reason we believe socialism is the next step is because capitalism has already socialized production, it just keeps the profits for the few. This creates a heightened class struggle that can only get worse as time goes by. We still have to overthrow capitalism and imperialism, but this is a process that is compelled by capitalism’s own centralization and monopolization. There’s no such thing as a static, unchanging system.

I explained up here how it’s a contradiction:

The contradiction is between the increasing interconnection of production and distribution, and the concentration of the profits of this system into fewer and fewer hands. The old system of imperialism is dying away, while the interconnected, post-imperialist world is rising, trying to overcome the old. The interconnection of production and distrubution creates the elements of the downfall of imperialism as the global south develops.

On Contradiction isn’t word salad, and dialectical materialism isn’t Kool-Aid. Dialectical materialism isn’t a formula to impose on the world, but a tool for us to see where to look when analyzing existing phenomena. It doesn’t give answers, but it helps us find them.

The contradiction is between the increasing interconnection of production and distribution, and the concentration of the profits of this system into fewer and fewer hands. The old system of imperialism is dying away, while the interconnected, post-imperialist world is rising, trying to overcome the old. The interconnection of production and distrubution creates the elements of the downfall of imperialism as the global south develops.

I maintain that people often use “nuance” on false-grounds to cape for genocide and imperialism.

Sure, but I’m not talking about the ROK or Singapore, I’m talking about socialist countries like the PRC and Cuba.

There are several socialist countries. What do you mean by “friend to the working classes” if not socialism?

False-nuance is a big problem for liberals, who frequently understate the brutality of the US Empire and overstate any misdoings of its adversaries. This helps justify the US Empire’s genocidal imperialism.

Social safety nets like medicine and education are not socialism. Socialism is a mode of production characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. Buying things and working for a living is not “promoting capitalism,” it’s existing within it. Someone deliberately saying “we need capitalism, imperialism, and genocide” like liberals do, who continue to prop up the DNC and GOP, are the ones promoting capitalism. You’re projecting hardcore right now.

I voted third party, not for either genocidal mainstream party. I also organize in real life, I don’t treat politics like an event once every 2 years. I’ll point fingers at the ones responsible, the capitalist system, the capitalist class, and those that enable them. You’re one of the enablers, and until youunderstand the necessity for moving beyond liberalism instead of protecting it, you’ll always be an enabler of fascism and genocide.

I never voted for genocide.

I only voted for Kamala

You voted for genocide.

First of all, Sweden doesn’t have socialism to begin with. You’re right that capitalism decaying means their safety nets have a time limit, but they subsidize them via imperialism. Socialism refers to an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes are in charge of the state.

As for your point on “sheep” and “people who challenge things,” a lot of this is again trying to look at the effects of class society and presuming it to be the cause. The superstructure is shaped by the base, which is reinforced by the superstructure. The superstructure does not create the base.

Liberals are right-wing, because, regardless of intentions, they contribute to the perpetuation of capitalism and the rise in fascism. It has nothing to do with what they want the outcome to be, and everything to do with what they actually do.

You’re confusing effect with cause, and as a consequence are mis-analyzing the key issues here. Fascism is rising because imperialism is decaying, and austerity is being brought home. It isn’t rising abstractly, but due to concrete material conditions. Perpetuating capitalism perpetuates the rise in fascism, so liberals, like it or not, are ineffectively fighting fascism by supporting the very system that gives rise to it.

As for what I do personally, I organize with a communist party, one that focuses on unionization, striking, protesting, and educating the working classes. I don’t sit on my hands for years at a time waiting for the next genocidal democrat to vote for, but instead make political activism a part of my life. Trying to claim that leftists are all infiltrators or grifters for having principles and coherent political analysis is absurd.

What on Earth are you talking about?

What’s wrong with Marxism? Why not engage with Marxists? Further, I know many Lemmy.ml users are anarchists or even liberals, we aren’t all communists.

When did I say China is a paradise? My point is that the socialist system in China is great, not perfect, not merely passable, but from my view as a Statesian it is moving forward and shows no signs of this slowing. As the country I reside in bombs other countries into submission, plunders the global south, and kills protestors and marginalized populations on stolen land, it’s hard not to admire the working system in China.

China should be criticized, but this should be done on the basis of meaningful critique. When blanket half-truths and falsehoods are disguised as “critique,” this just serves to legitimize the US Empire’s antagonism. For example, if I say McDonalds would be better off if they stopped putting cyanide in 10% of their burgers, this doesn’t actually add anything. It isn’t critique, it’s nonsense.

I don’t have a link, unfortunately.

Either way, the PRC does admit to flaws and problems. The method of criticism and self-criticism is applied in China. Further, the government isn’t run by a “bunch of horny greedy assholes.” Corruption exists to a certain degree, but the CPC regularly cracks down on this, rather than allowing it to flourish. It seems, above all, that you’re letting your distrust of government in general cause you to magnify problems in China beyond their real existence in order to equate it to capitalist states.

I have never lived in China, no, but the textbook I provided is an overview of the real systems that exist, flaws and all, combined with the theoretical reasoning for the structures and the reasons they have changed over time, their history. That’s why I added that socialist democracy is imperfect, but it stands in stark contrast to the utter failure that is capitalist democracy, and I listed the reasons why.

The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.

The US Empire, on the other hand, has private ownership as principle, with top-down “democracy.” Candidates are pre-selected, and term limits ensure that even if a genuine socialist won, they would not be able to sufficiently change the system. It’s designed for maintaining the dominance of capital.

I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.

That position doesn’t really exist, though. Media literacy is one of the most important skills anyone can develop.

I can understand not trusting the US Empire, Israel, etc, but why not trust the PRC? I’d rather trust a socialist country with a functional democratic governance over capitalist countries.