2 ms·

I can at least appreciate someone who advocates for non-Marxist or Leninist forms of communism or just socialism in general. But there has been a remarkable ris

I can at least appreciate someone who advocates for non-Marxist or Leninist forms of communism or just socialism in general. But there has been a remarkable rise of young people who now defend Leninist communism! I think for a lot of people, it's intellectual junk food. A Marxist revolution has a low risk of actually happening in the modern world. And rather than educating yourself on policy and working on advocacy, you get to play in a fantasy world where you don't have to do anything except fight the conspiracy suppressing a natural egalitarian world order.

CrackerNews 4y ago
It's the "intellectual junk food" behind the USSR and China turning from backwards peasant conditions to rival global powers. Orthodox Marxist theory States that society must be advanced enough to reach a socialist phase. The nature of the class-based Hegelian dialectics that leads to communism is nebulous and unclear IMO, but I interpret it as something like the fall of feudalism.
- legitster 4y ago
  USSR certainly industrialized past the levels of serfdom, but individuals were clearly still held back from their full economic potential. It wasn't until AFTER they left the USSR that most of the former Soviet states actually reached modern standards of living. There's nothing to say the revolution actually benefited the average person in Russia more than the natural dissemination of coal power would have. China only began thriving after they abandoned Marxist-flavored communism and integrated markets into their government. Well, it's not just unclear to you. Even if you buy into some of Marx's more coherent ideas, it's such a bonkers idea to form a government with the expressed intent of achieving some sort of vague Hegelian state as outlined by some untestable arguments described in an unfinished work of political critiques. Das Kapital is not exactly a useful guide for creating actual policy.
- int_19h 4y ago
  If what you care about is rivalling global powers, it's hard to beat US at this game. Conversely, does it really matter one way or the other if the citizens don't see the benefits? E.g. speaking of backwards peasant conditions: USSR had restrictions on peasants moving around until 1974 - before then, most peasants simply weren't issued internal passports.

CrackerNews 4y ago

It's the "intellectual junk food" behind the USSR and China turning from backwards peasant conditions to rival global powers. Orthodox Marxist theory States that society must be advanced enough to reach a socialist phase. The nature of the class-based Hegelian dialectics that leads to communism is nebulous and unclear IMO, but I interpret it as something like the fall of feudalism.

legitster 4y ago
USSR certainly industrialized past the levels of serfdom, but individuals were clearly still held back from their full economic potential. It wasn't until AFTER they left the USSR that most of the former Soviet states actually reached modern standards of living. There's nothing to say the revolution actually benefited the average person in Russia more than the natural dissemination of coal power would have. China only began thriving after they abandoned Marxist-flavored communism and integrated markets into their government. Well, it's not just unclear to you. Even if you buy into some of Marx's more coherent ideas, it's such a bonkers idea to form a government with the expressed intent of achieving some sort of vague Hegelian state as outlined by some untestable arguments described in an unfinished work of political critiques. Das Kapital is not exactly a useful guide for creating actual policy.
int_19h 4y ago
If what you care about is rivalling global powers, it's hard to beat US at this game. Conversely, does it really matter one way or the other if the citizens don't see the benefits? E.g. speaking of backwards peasant conditions: USSR had restrictions on peasants moving around until 1974 - before then, most peasants simply weren't issued internal passports.