You're viewing part of a thread.
The number of Marxists who explicitly reject Lenin make up a tiny minority of the overall number of Marxists globally, and the ones who do so reside almost exclusively in Western Countries. Trying to uphold rejections of Lenin's expansions on Marx's original writings as "pure" doesn't really fit with that.
Secondly, no Marxist supports the Russian Federation, they see it as a horrible Capitalist regime that is temporarily working against the United States out of desparation. The concept of "critical support" is accepting that someone you entirely disagree with ideologically can be fighting a shared enemy, no more and no less.
Do they just support anything that isn’t western even if it’s arguably worse?
Critically support, somewhat, and the argument is that in a geopolitical context the US is more dangerous to Socialist movements than countries opposing US hegemony at the moment, and that once US hegemony is toppled these countries that once had "critical support" can be turned into the next enemy to be fought, assuming they don't come to Socialism before then. The very fact that you say which is worse is "arguable" lends validity to the concept of critical support, as the alternative is further US domination of the Global South.
Even then, Marxists are divided on Russia with respect to whether or not to even critically support it. The notion that there are Marxists that support the Russian Federation outright as an example of Marxism is fantasy.
Ah, yes, Lenin. Definitely the creator of Marxism-Leninism, no reason to talk about the other guy. Don't look up anything about Stalin, he's harder for tankies to whitewash, not that they won't fall ass over teakettle trying. It's their job after all.
Lenin created the theory, he didn't call himself a "Marxist-Leninist" just like Marx didn't call himself a "Marxist." In the context of the comment I replied to, they specifically cited Orthodox Marxists, a fringe minority among Marxists that intentionally reject Lenin.
Bro smelt discussion about Marxism and dashed here immediately💀
Yea I'm a bit of a theory nerd...
It seems that you're in every discussion that contains some mention of socialism or Marxism. How many threads do you scroll a day?
A decent bit, I try to make it a point to correct misconceptions surrounding Marxism when I see them. I truly believe the biggest source of conflict on Lemmy is talking past each other, most people agree on the fundamentals, ergo correcting misconceptions when I see them is helpful to fostering a less toxic and less divisive environment.
Hopefully.
Well you're doing a good job... I think. I'm at least more open to socialism than i once was
What he's selling isn't socialism, it's authoritarianism. Socialist ideals are already prominent here and his apologia for brutally oppressive regimes does the opposite of fostering a less toxic or less divisive environment.
I'm aware that cowbee isn't a socialist. However, my discussions with them have made me appreciate leftist ideologies a bit more than i used to. Particularly socialism. I still think communism is too extreme and a recipe for failure
Also, i think most criticisms of Marxism on Lemmy is the echo chamber echoing rather actual rebuttals
When you say I am "not a Socialist," are you trying to say that because I am a Communist I am not a Socialist, or are you saying I am a "fake" Socialist, like the other user implies? Marxists consider themselves Socialist and Communist, as Communism is a subcategory of Socialism (and Socialism is the next stage in development to begin with, Communism comes after Socialism, not Capitalism, so in terms of immediacy all Communists are first Socialists). I'm a Marxist, so I am both a Socialist and a Communist.
Okay, that was a definition error on my part. I separate socialism and communism as two different things. My point was that as a Marxist, you consider communism to be the ultimate and most desirable stage, so essentially you're selling communism when you're selling socialism. I, on the other hand, am completely fine with socialism being the terminus.
Seriously, the whole definitions of 'socialism' and 'communism' is a context-dependent hell with over a century of baggage. It's hard not to find definition errors in online arguments. In the time of Marx's original writings the two terms were often treated interchangeably as synonyms, while others consider them mutually exclusive stages of development, while other people stretch the word socialism into anything from Bernie Sanders (a supporter of social capitalism and private property, who Marxists wouldn't even consider to be socialist) and I've even seen some odd fellow claiming anything funded by taxes is socialism... a politically useless definition but unfortunately one many people recognise.
Then you get the whole confusion of "-ist" and "-ism". In one context, "communism" can mean a society with a communist mode of production ("money is abolished under communism", "we're trying to achieve communism"), while other times "communism" can mean "the political movement aiming to achieve a society with a communist mode of production", and then the word "communist" can describe a person or group subscribing to that movement. Similar with "socialism"/"socialist". So, common vague questions like "is china socialist?" can be, sincerely, read different ways by different people - they obviously haven't achieved a [fully] socialist mode of production so many will say no (they still ultimately have capitalist economic structures, whether state dominated or not), but they're also evidently a communist state and therefore also a socialist state since it's run by a Communist Party that believes in and attempts a transition towards a socialist mode of production, so many will say yes (in the same way that I call myself a socialist, they call the state of China socialist - neither exists in a socialist mode of production but both subscribe to a socialist school of thought).
When you begin to see the different schools of thought (especially anarcho-communist vs. Marxist-Leninist schools), and know how some might have different interpretations of similar concepts, it can help clear up some of the confusion and apparent contradictions.
(Don't be worried if any of this was confusing, I intentionally picked some of the most confusing cases for dramatic effect! It gets much easier with a little experience.)
Gotcha. Marxists split Socialism and Communism in terms of stages, seeing Socialism as the transitional status where Capital becomes subservient to Humanity, rather than the opposite under Capitalism. The reason Marxists declare that Socialism is transitional is because Marxists believe there is no such thing as a static system, and as such under Socialism Capital will progressively become more collectivized with respect to its development until there is no more Private industry, at which point Communism, ie a fully centrally planned and publicly owned economic system, becomes the next phase.
Communism isn't the end goal, either. With the advent of Communism, there will likely continue to be further evolutions on societal organization, but we can't predict what that will look like without first reaching Communism and observing its trajectories, just like Marx did when noticing Capitalism's tendency to centralize and predicting the Proletariat would sieze it and use the infrastructure for planning created by markets to bring Socialism and eventually Communism into existence. That's where the "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" meme/non-meme comes from, as the stage beyond regular Communism.
The other commenter is likely an Anarchist, insinuating that Marxism is Authoritarianism, and therefore not Socialist, though I obviously disagree with that I don't think engaging them directly would benefit anyone right now.
Thanks, appreciate it! 🫡
Ok, so if I'm understanding this correctly, you're supportive of the actions of countries that oppress their own people (e.g. Russia's anti-LGBT+ laws, China's oppression of Uyghurs and Tibetans, etc.), aggressively invade other countries (as Russia is doing in Ukraine, as China sort of did with Hong Kong's semi-independence and is threatening to do to Taiwan, not to mention their enforcement of their claims in Vietnamese and Filipino waters), without being supportive of the countries themselves. Because you think that those countries causing harm to the western world is likely to eventually lead to the west doing less harm to the developing world, and/or help accelerate the proletarian revolution in western countries?
Is that a fair (in content, if not in tone) assessment of your stance?
I wouldn't say that's a fair assessment of my comment, plus I very specifically did not give my stance as my goal was to dispell the myth that any Marxists approve of the Russian Federation's Capitalism, ultranationalism, reactionary social views, etc. I don't want to give my personal stance here, as
-
That would take far too long for a simple Lemmy thread to convey with any real complexity, and
-
What I personally believe doesn't matter here, it wouldn't lead to productive conversation to begin with as Marxism is not a monolith (which was the central point of my last paragraph)
Ok, I guess you're a lost cause then. Your comments in this thread had me almost thinking I was speaking to someone reasonable, but nope...just typical tankie bullshit.
-