Find a Marxist against Democracy.

We love that for him. Escape

Living is fun and I have people I love and care for deeply, that make me see the world through alternative angles that deepen my appreciation.

Physical helps me remember better when I write it down, and I love sketching tasks, but it makes no difference when crossing them off.

I would say by that definition, every system is authoritarian to different degrees, and as such we all just pick whatever degree we are okay with. It’s vibes based, not metrics based.

Communism is classless, yes, but Communism must be built, as it is the eventual elimination of contradictions. You may wish to read Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx makes a good critique of a bad Socialist program and advocates for a different Socialist method of reaching Communism.

I asked you to find a Marxist against Democracy because that mythical anti-Democracy Marxist doesn’t exist.

It isn’t a dodge, it’s like you asking veterinarians why they like screwing cats and dogs.

I like to think I am.

Reading, hiking, backpacking, cooking, brewing, fixing, loving, caring, dreaming, building, gaming, growing, learning, teaching.

Not sure underrated, but Swans is fantastic. Brutal, oppressive, horrifyingly beautiful sound.

Big Thief is the pure opposite, it’s like a comforting hug and warm coffee.

I generally don’t.

I do want Democracy. What are you talking about?

I don’t believe social democracy or democratic socialism are enough, but if they are baby steps against Imperialism then I think it’s a good move, if only to later hope for a Marxist revolution. That’s really my core point, I suppose.

Thanks for the discussion!

I want to start this off by reponding to your closer, I agree entirely, this is a good-faith convo I appreciate among fellow Marxist comrades, and I do enjoy it!

I ageee that it isn’t ideal to pick between the lesser of two evils, but I believe one can support a lesser of two evils between 2 evils while supporting good revolutionary or corrective movements within.

As for the bit on Social Democracy within the periphery, I know it isn’t Socialism and will never be Socialism, but third world Social Democracies do help focus on domestic nationalization and throw off Imperialism from the Global North. Those movements against Imperialism in my opinion are much better than going along with it, as they increase the revolutionary potential in their neighbors and former Imperialists.

It’s like a multi-layered level of support, there are very few truly hard-line Marxist movements, so we have to work with what exists presently. We can advocate for better while also critically supporting movements that would better allow better movements later.

Kinda like supporting Palestine. Even if Hamas is reactionary, Palestine will never move forward socially until it throws off its oppressors, which is why supporting Palestinian Liberation is straightforward.

I appreciate your thoughts!

So it seems to me that we are in agreement that the PRC is certainly not full Socialism, and definitely has more internal than external funding. In this instance, in a contradiction between US and PRC hegemony, would the Global South be better off with the PRC or US as the global superpower? I understand that we do not fully support the PRC, as it is revisionist in many ways and does enact some level of Imperialism, but in contrast to the US it focuses on Peace and internal development, rather than forever wars.

I guess if we can both agree that neither are good that’s a step forward, but I see the PRC as a lesser evil in the global context. It certainly isn’t a strong ally for the Global South, but seems to present fewer challenges for the Global South to throw off the reigns of Imperialism themselves and transition to a Social Democracy, or even Socialism outright.

I really do think that’s the point here with the PRC vs the US.

What are your thoughts on that?

By your definition all states are authoritarian, it doesn’t matter if I want a democratic state or not, that’s authoritarian in the eyes of an Anarchist.

Council Communists get a pass because they are relegated purely to academia and never to praxis, seemingly.

No, as in the ones pushing the revolution the hardest, and typically the ones with the strongest level of understanding of leftist organizational theory, be it Marxist or Anarchist or even whatever else.

You’re free to make that critique, I would just hope that you can actually make concessions just like Marxists do when it comes to unifying theory and practice.

The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary party, yes. Among the entire revolution, they were among the most radical. In any revolution, there will be a group that is the most radical and moving the most, even if they don’t formalize it. Do you expect everyone to be an Anarchist before the revolution?

As for the Imperialism bit, you’re being even more dishonest than usual, haha. I explicitly said that it was expansionist and Imperialist in the liberal sense of the word. That doesn’t mean wrong! This is silly, the rest of your paragraphs are nailing down on a point I never made.

As for the jab about Anarchists, Marxists can’t trust Anarchists either, infighting is always a 2 way street among leftists. You may be interested in reading this meeting between Lenin and Kropotkin. Kropotkin criticizes Lenin, and Lenin criticizes back, it’s a really interesting meeting and neither makes themselves a fool IMO.

100% agreed on Alt-History, no questions from me on that.

However, I do want to flip this around just a bit, for the sake of a thought experiment. For critical supporters of the PRC, it seems that opposing US hedgemony and creating a multipolar world is the primary means by which Lenin’s Imperialism can be fought in our present moment, even if we lack any hardline Marxist powers.

In your eyes, what should these Marxists instead be supporting? The US? It seems everyone is agreed on supporting the Global South, but when it comes to countries with any real influence on global geopolitics, are all of them bad and unworthy of even critical support, generally, or is there a force you believe is on somewhat of the right track, as a Marxist?

This isn’t a gotcha, I am genuinely interested in this conversation.

It does not. Revolution occurs without prompting, yes, but there will always be a group of the most radical within the larger group, the group taking the majority of the action.

As for the Workers Councils, yes, they were replaced with the Union system.

As for Imperialism, I absolutely agree that it was expansionist, and follows the Liberal definition of Imperialism. This isn’t good! However, if you’re focusing on Lenin’s definition, Castro had this to say: “if the USSR was imperialist then where are it’s private monopolies? Where is its participation in multi-national corporations? What industries, what mines, what petroleum deposits does it own in the underdeveloped world? What worker is exploited in Asia, Africa or Latin America by Soviet capital?”

The reason most Marxists accept Lenin’s definition of Imperialism as a sort of bourgeois/proletarian relation at international scale, is because countries in the Global South can’t become Socialist until they throw off the thumb of Imperialism, and Imperialist countries won’t become Socialist until they stop being Imperialist.

Again, liberal meaning of Imperialist? Yes, absolutely. Expansionist? Yes, absolutely. Marxist definition of Imperialism? Eh, closer to no than yes.

The USSR absolutely wasn’t perfect, it was highly flawed, just as we should expect the first major Marxist state in history to be. We can learn from what worked and what didn’t.

Absolutely. Fall/Winter reign supreme, Spring is nice too.