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!
Sure, I’ve explored a bunch of other ways. I wound up agreeing that communism is the correct path, guided by Marxism-Leninism, which has various forms in real life such as the former USSR, Cuba, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos.
Capitalism has been in power a lot linger than 30-40 years.
People in power don’t tend to “grab more power.” “Power” is not a metaphysical power that corrupts people, what actually happens is that systems like capitalism reward those that get profit by any means necessary.
Capitalism would not be acceptable even with a progressive tax. The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible, and that all profit a capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Not only this, but capitalism trends towards imperialism and collapse, it’s unsustainable. Over time, there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall due to a rise in the ratio of capital to labor as representing the value of a commodity. This is combatted by expansion to raise absolute profits, and by monopoly to raise rates of profit. What this creates is a systemic push towards underdeveloping the global sourh, placing compradors in power, and super-exploiting foreign workers for super profits.
The US Empire is at the helm, but western Europe and strategic allies also benefit and participate in this system. No amount of progressive taxation can fix this, what we need is for humanity to become the master of capital. We need to work towards collectivization of all production and distribution, and orient this towards satisfying the needs of everyone.
I also have no idea what you’re hinting at by saying “there’s no we.”
Gonna be honest, I don’t consider the DNC to be opposition, more collusion. The US Empire has always been a genocidal plunderer, at a global scale too.
What do you mean “power accumulating?” This sounds like you’re talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don’t see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class “we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized? That takes time and effort.
Very cool and good.
Based, don’t let the Empire bully you.
You erased imperialism, continuity, motion, and history, in favor of steering the conversation towards imperialist countries somehow being a better system for enjoying their plunder.
Replying here because we reached the max comment depth.
If you cut the Nordics off of their imperialism, they would not be able to have these same safety nets. The people doing the bulk of the labor for the Nordic safety nets do not get access to them. China does run its safety nets from its own labor. You’re taking a selectively blind approach that apologizes for imperialism.
Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There’s absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.
It’s not about “rhetoric,” but the system itself. China has more social safety nets for those it depends on than the Nordics do. The Nordics just withold the safety nets for those inside the imperial core while depending on austerity abroad, while China is internally driven. Again, you’re trying to remove those that the system depends on from consideration, equivalent to saying “being a billionaire is the best system.” The Nordics are not a self-sufficient, closed loop, but instead part of the imperial core.
That’s less absurd than your claim seemed to be on the surface, but I haven’t seen anything suspect from OP besides this.
Thankfully with the rise of socialist countries and the decay in imperialism this process is still unfolding. A quantitative buildup is how we get qualitative leaps.
Yea I have no idea what Tavi is talking about here, lol.
Sure, but China is a socialist country that orients production towards common prosperity, and the billionaires aren’t in control of the state. The billionaires in the Nordics exist at the expense of the global south, the billionaires in China exploit Chinese people. The major difference is that China takes care of their working classes, while the Nordics take care of their internal working class while forcing austerity on their external working class. Comparing the bottom in both systems, China surpasses the Nordics by a long shot.
Billionaires cannot exist without the workers they plunder from, just like imperialist countries cannot exist without the countries they plunder from. Trying to isolate a subsection of the economy and erase those doing the work to prop it up is your error. The workers in the global south that prop up the Nordic systems are contained within that system, and as a consequence the actual working class is below China in terms of safety nets. China doesn’t rely on this system, and as such is ahead.
And it makes no difference to you if these safety nets are eroding, and depend entirely on depriving people in the global south of their own wealth and safety nets? By your logic billionaires have the best safety nets, so being a billionaire is the best system.
“Best” in what way? A tiny number of countries that fund their safety nets through plundering the global south doesn’t mean capitalism is good at safety nets, it means capitalism forces plunder. You never engage with this point and it sounds like you’re pro-imperialism.
I said that socialist countries are better at providing for the working class now. This statement requires isolating variables and taking differences into account when making a comparison, not looking at static and arbitrary comparisons. Further, the decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries are already ongoing, not processes for the future. You’ve been explained this before and haven’t responded to it, or justified why your arbitrary comparison is better than comparing peer countries and trajectories.
Same goes with not giving a clear answer on geographical shifts, evolution, and imperialism. Your static snapshot method is wrong.
Power isn’t a supernatural corrupting force, power is a tool, not a need itself. There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.
Socialism works to eradicate class distinctions. Workers wanting more for their labor is fine, but in capitalism it’s the capitalists that hold all of the leverage and thus pay workers as little as possible. Capitalists are parasites.
Capitalists do not “bring the company,” they own the paper that legally entails them to it. The workers are the ones that run the company, capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint.
If there was a single capitalist owning everything, then there wouldn’t be. Capitalism demands competition and circulation of commodities, capitalists depend on that for profit. If it all dies, then capitalism would cease to function and break down, and the ensuing fallout would result in either socialism or barbarism.
As I alluded to above, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in a finite world results in gradual breakdown of capitalism. Imperialism causes it to stick around for longer, but also prompts revolution in the global south. Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.
As for collectivization, it just sounds like you’re asking why we aren’t yet organized. Some countries already have organized and successfully established socialism, the rest of us still need to organize.