Lenin was a mushroom
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
21 points (81.8% liked)
Asklemmy
46266 readers
2579 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Tankies don't have a solution for what to do when you and your homies are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand, and one friend won't shut up about how everybody should go into the marsh.
Marx never said centrally plan the economy.
In Critique of the Gotha Programme:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another.
Such a system requires centralized planning, Marx's entire reason for predicting Socialism to overtake Capitalism came from Marx's analysis of Capitalism's centralizing factor. As industry gets more complex, it grows, until everything is owned in common after revolution and gradual expropriation from Capitalists.
The long quote is about the Principle of Equivalence, not about central planning.
You present a case for Principle of Equivalence, and declare "therefore central planning!" Your conclusion doesn't follow from your line of reasoning.
Marx's observations of Capitalism and markets indicated that as they grow more complex and advanced, they centralize and require more advanced administration. The quote I am specifically referencing is indeed about attacking notions of equivalence, but in the background he very clearly mentions "deductions for social funds," etc etc.
In order to abolish class, all ownership must be equal over all industry. Decentralized networks of communes that trade with each other doesn't accomplish this, it makes everyone a petite-bourgeois owner of that which is within their commune, as they do not control other communes. There must be some form of centralized planning to make ownership equal across all of society.
Abolition of private property can only truly be made possible through a single world government. There can be units for local control, but these must be subservient to the whole in order for class to truly be abolished.
If we are allowed to pull from Engels, he even directly references this as the "Administration of Things," as a post-State society:
Although the knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo, what is already very plainly expressed is the transition from political rule over men to the administration of things and the guidance of the processes of production -- that is to say, the "abolition of the state", about which there has recently been so much noise.
True, but we know that one. He also never had a plan to achieve communism either. The devil's in the details of HOW we get there.
How about this one to make Leninists mad: Marx and Engels said ad nauseum for 40 years that the democratic republic is the political form in which the class struggle can be fought and won.
Are you meaning that Marx and Engels were reformist? That's frankly wrong, Marx and Engels were thoroughly revolutionary, and this has been proven correct in practice as revolution has been the only successful way to implement Socialism thus far.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Isn't always true. Just because a country/political faction opposes US hegemony doesn't automatically make them morally superior.
Isn't it implied by using this proverb that you know they have some bad qualities?
Same as supporting the 'lesser evil'?
Also, it's hardly impossible to not be morally superior to these scumbags.
That's not what MLs actually believe, we have the concept of critical support. It's the act of backing a cause, group, or individual while maintaining a clear-eyed critique of their flaws, contradictions, or harmful actions. Itβs not unconditional endorsement but a pragmatic stance that balances solidarity with accountability.
Even tho we don't care about it, the US holds no moral high ground on any country. The US certainly doesn't care about it either when they support "socialist" forces in Syria, like the SDF, while also supporting headchoppers like HTS. Everything goes as long as it advances their interests.
Oh yeah of course, the US is an imperialist, neocolonialist power that does a tremendous amount of harm in the world.
I'm an anarchist, so you won't find me singing the praises of any state power, for sure not the US. They do what all states do, consolidate centralized power and dominate as many people as they can.
My point was that some folks act like anything that opposes the interests of the US is automatically good, and that's not true, ISIS opposes the US, but they're a pretty fucked up group of religious extremists, same with the Westboro Baptist Church hate group, who also oppose the US strongly, but are total scumbags.
Regionally reactionary groups like Hamas can find themselves fighting for a globally progressive cause, just like regionally progressive groups like the SDF can find themselves strengthening globally reactionary causes.
US imperialism is the main reactionary force in the world, so yes entities that legitimately end up opposing US interests, regardless of their internal politics, end up fighting for a progressive cause and deserve my critical support.
On another note, ISIS is straight up an US pawn.
Edit: SDF straight up went masks off
Maybe anarchists are necessary to help keep the revolutionary state honest. However, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call myself an anti-Leninist.
Honestly, I find there's a lot of overlap between Marxism and Anarcho-syndicalism, and I think this is essentially the correct way for the workforce to be organized.
For a while, that's probably how I would have sorted myself, but how are the anarcho-syndicalists on taking power from capital and wielding it? How does that differ from Lenin's guidance? (Part of why I don't call myself an anti-Leninist is that I haven't read any Lenin lol.)
Allow me to shamelessly plug my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if you don't mind! Lenin is a phenomenal author and is critical to modern theory. You can come to your own conclusions, but the works of Lenin I cite in my list I would consider the "essentials," and the works preceding them in the reading order to be helpful in contextualizing them.
As far I'm aware, Anarcho-syndicalists don't really provide a solution for changing the system as a whole. Meanwhile, Lenin focused specifically on achieving a socialist revolution. Lenin primarily dealt with the task of organizing and education the masses to create a revolutionary force that would be able to seize power from the capitalists. The two most prominent works I'd recommend starting with would be What Is To be Done? and The State and Revolution.
Anarcho syndicalism is snakey af
When have the anarchists accomplished anything? The people itself should keep their goverment honest.
Every day; all sorts of stuff from simply feeding people to high level assassinations, including a POTUS. Anarchism is a means by which the people can embarrass the government and compel corrective action to its deficiencies.
Paid holidays, 8 hour shifts, women's ability to vote, same-sex marriages and LGTBIQ+ rights in general... Those are ideals and achievements that started in anarchism.
you gotta be delusional if you think those things were accomplished by anarchists lmao
Lennin's "state and revolution" and accepting China as a communist country are in conflict with each other. Most tankies or "Marxist-Lenninist" are distorting both Marx and Lennin. Communism in one country can not exists for long without a global overthrow of the capitalist class. Yes, the state in these various countries control the economy more or less, but who controls the state? My assertion, and most other Trotskyists, is that its not the workers.
Socialism in one country is certainly possible, Communism must be global. This has always been the case, and historical practice affirms this. The Trotskyist assertion needs to actually be backed by analysis, in the time of Trotsky support for Permanent Revolution came because of a lack of faith in the Peasantry, such issues are not the same in the PRC and moreover the Peasantry has been shown to authentically align with the Proletariat.
I have never seen a Trotskyist on Lemmy before now.
We addressed this point on Prolewiki: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Abandoning_of_Marxism/Capitalist_restoration
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Democracy_and_popular_opinion
China is actually a democracy
view more: next βΊ