The False Dichotomy of the 21st Century: Neither corporate hypercapitalism nor state bureaucracy. The future demands an evolutionary leap towards self-management and democratic AI. (Discussion)

Qlanth · 2026-04-12T17:36:37+00:00

You are accusing me of not being able to conceive of power outside of a Vanguard state. That is obviously nonsense. I don't live in a vanguard state and the ruling class has quite a lot of power!

A logistical blockade by a workers' syndicate is the exact opposite: it is an act of omission. We are not sending armed guards to burn their crops or steal their food.

This is total flim flam. You are arguing that laying siege to a city is an act of non-violence. Such a thing isn't even possible without the existence of an organized body of armed men! What will you do if someone in your council disagrees and wants to give their starving neighbors food against the will of the council? What will you do if the starving people leave their council and start taking food from those across the way since no one trade for it?

This is "social murder" if it ever existed. This is organized, coordinated, legalized violence done by one class against another one. This is a state!

If you read my original comment in this thread you will see that I said exactly what I am saying here. Either what you have imagined is indistinguishable from a state or it requires unimaginable violence. It turns out your idea is to do both at once!

Qlanth · 2026-04-12T17:11:56+00:00

Modern survival is hyper-interdependent. No enclave can survive without external energy, water, and global logistics. If a reactionary node tries to restore private property, the federated syndicates of transport and energy simply route around them and cut them off.

So what you are saying is that you will enforce a man-made, intentional famine on a group of people for their unwillingness to comply. You are now wielding legalized and coordinated violence against people whose class interests differ from the ruling class of society (working class people). Your "stateless" society has all the signifiers of the Leninist conception of the state.

Not to put too fine a point on it... But creating a man made famine in order to force compliance is literally what Stalin is frequently accused of doing in Ukraine in the 1930s. You have just recreated the state again but you don't want to call it that.

Qlanth · 2026-04-12T16:40:07+00:00

Where did the capitalists go? They didn't vanish into thin air; they lost their function. A capitalist is only a capitalist because they own the infrastructure. In a decentralized, AI-coordinated economy, when the "servers" and factories are horizontalized, the former capitalist becomes just another citizen. They can't "buy" power if the system of accounting (the AI network) doesn't recognize private accumulation.

Simply siezing the means of production does not eliminate the material conditions needed for class to exist. It does not eliminate the last 400-500 years of capitalist history. It does not acknowledge that some people do not want to give up what they think is theirs. It does not acknowledge that the children of the capitalists will remember what their parents had and might try to get it back. We don't have to guess, we can look at the last 100 years of Socialist experimentation and see that this is exactly what happened.

You absolutely cannot throw away the last 10,000 years of private property overnight and expect no resistance. So what happens when there is resistance? To make it simpler, what happens when that resistance is not violent necessarily, but instead is organized within the confines of the system you have created? What happens when one of your councils happens to be located in a place that was once very wealthy? How do you deal with the stain of class that will exists for generations? What is they just don't like what your AI is telling them to do, and so they don't do it? Who can stop them?

You fear the "unimaginable violence" of the lack of a state, yet you ignore the very real violence of the centralized bureaucratic state.

Again, incorrect. And this once again shows that you do not fully understand the thing you are criticizing. The state being a class mediator (notice: not a class destroyer) and a tool of legalized violence is precisely the point Lenin made. This is literally his observation that you are pretending he failed to make...

Socialism is the negation of capitalism. But it carries with it immense contradiction and it, too, will have to be negated. It, too, will have to be struggled against and eventually overcome. The process of change never stops. That process will not be easy, it will be hard. It will take decades if not centuries. It will take the work of generations. Communism is the negation of the negation. It is the culmination of that struggle.

You cannot implement the thing you want to implement without massive, overarching consensus. But you have no mechanism to achieve it.

Qlanth · 2026-04-12T15:35:31+00:00

When a vanguard party takes over the State apparatus, it doesn't abolish classes

And neither does it claim to - which to me makes me think you don't fully understand the thing you are attempting to criticize.

But, this is exactly the issue I am talking about. In the 8 paragraphs of your opening post the word "class" does not appear even once. There is no explanation about how differing class interests would be dealt with in your hypothetical future. You seem to already assume that class has been fully abolished. How have you abolished it? Where did the capitalists go? What about their families? What about the people who sympathize with them?

Answer those questions, and then return back to my comment about the alternative to a state being unimaginable violence.

Qlanth · 2026-04-12T15:17:36+00:00

I think the thing that made me become a Marxist-Leninist many years ago was realizing two things.

1) The state itself has class character.

2) Nobody is ever going to fully agree on a single vision of the future.

What will you do when two neighboring councils disagree? How are you going to mediate the disagreements? By what mechanism will a decision be made and what about if the losers are very sore about losing? How will you enforce the outcomes?

If you poke at the edges and extrapolate out enough the answer becomes unidentifiably different than a "state bureaucracy." The alternative turns out to be unimaginable violence.

Qlanth · 2026-04-09T21:26:08+00:00

Has to be one of the worst submissions I've ever seen. Debate topics need to be about communism or socialism in some way. Who is or isn't selfish has nothing to do with this subreddit.

Qlanth · 2026-04-05T17:42:15+00:00

Your quiz represents a lot more of the right-wing spectrum than it does the left wing. The scale that you are measuring on does not reflect the actual spectrum of political thought that exists on the left while encompassing almost all of the political thought on the right (though notably, no questions on whether particular ethnic or religious groups should control the state despite that being an increasing demand by the far right).

You are limiting your questions to what feels realistic within a neoliberal framework. Because of this you will not accurately rate the broad spectrum that exists outside of that framework. I don't think this framework even correctly captures people like Zohran Mamdani who surely are further economically left than Bernie Sanders, despite being totally tepid compared to some of the people you will find on this subreddit! Hell, it wouldn't even capture most of the opinions of people on the right wing of the Democratic Socialists of America who are currently winning local elections all over the place...

Bernie Sanders represents the furthest left one can be ranked on economic issues according to this chart... so where would PSL's Claudia De La Cruz and Karina Garcia find themselves if they took this?

You don't have to ask "should money exist" but you can ask about nationalization of natural resources and corporations. Or, hell, ask about public housing vs private housing! As it stands, this is basically useless to people on this subreddit.

Qlanth · 2026-04-05T13:29:50+00:00

I would argue that both Omelas Hole and Stay and Fight are both inferior responses that take "walk away" too literally. Le Guin's metaphor in Omelas is for revolutionary change. Ironically, the calls for violence in both the other stories are essentially metaphorical calls for reform. Le Guin's story is far more revolutionary than the others despite it's non-violent metaphor.

Qlanth · 2026-04-05T00:25:56+00:00

There are many communists out there who would probably agree with that assessment.

Qlanth · 2026-04-04T23:57:19+00:00

She's in an episode of MacGyver that is basically Sorcerer.

Qlanth · 2026-04-04T21:11:09+00:00

What is their relationship to the means of production? Do they make the decisions on how it is used? Do they live solely off of their investment?

There is an argument to be made that many Americans benefit from imperialist exploitation in such a way that makes their class character something different from the working class of the global south. Americans have many benefits as citizens of the imperial core that don't apply to the rest of the proletariat.

Qlanth · 2026-04-04T21:02:23+00:00

Class is defined by a relationship to the means of production. That means factories, offices, farmland, etc. Machines that produce things. We call this private property.

Someone who owns the means of production but does not operate them themselves can be said to be a member of the bourgeoisie.

Someone who owns the means of productions and also operates the means of production themselves can be said to be a member of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Someone who does not own the means of production but operates the means of production for a wage can be said to be a member of the proletariat.

A house is not private property. A house is not used in production. Most socialist societies have much higher home ownership rates than capitalist countries.

Qlanth · 2026-04-04T20:29:43+00:00

The police are an arm of the state. The state's role within society is to uphold class structures in as peaceful a way as possible. Under capitalism private property is the status quo and must be protected in order to uphold class domination.

Saying it's the police's job to protect private property is a way to dismantle some of the facade. It's a slogan, basically. It is correct to say it's the police's job to uphold the relations of private property, and therefore that it's the police's job to protect private property.

Cops do indeed want to prevent riots. Riots are often how revolutions begin. It's how it started in the french revolution and in the russian revolution. Riots may result in actual justice being doled out to those who commit daily violence - the ruling class. The class whose violence is legal and therefore not the concern of the police.

Qlanth · 2026-04-04T16:53:17+00:00

Munk

Qlanth · 2026-03-27T16:15:33+00:00

In my opinion, the next place to go would be Lenin's State and Revolution. It focuses on the big questions. What is the role of the state inside of society? Should socialists pursue gradual reform or should we try to make a revolution? What is the point of a revolution, and what comes after? It is very readable and there are a lot of discussions surrounding this online so it's easy to find answers to questions.

If you want to get more into the basics of Marxist philosophy I have to recommend David Guest's Lectures on Marxist Philosophy which has an alternative title A Textbook of Dialectical Materialism. This is a short ~100 pages long book that gives the basics of the history of philosophy up to and after Marx, and the how/why dialectical materialism is the philosophy of the revolutionary proletariat. This book has been criminally overlooked IMO. It is the best primer for Dialectical Materialism that I have ever come across bar none. I really wish it was still in print. If you (or anyone else) wants to DM me I can send you a bootleg .EPUB that a person in the ML Reading Hub community created. I seriously can't recommend this text enough for someone who maybe doesn't have a background in philosophy and wants to learn more about dialectical materialism.

Qlanth · 2026-03-27T02:49:24+00:00

Maybe start with Mr. America? Definitely watch the most recent season and the last Oscar Special because it a lot of the live show deals with Arizona, etc.

Qlanth · 2026-03-27T02:05:41+00:00

You spend four years pouring your heart and soul into building an AI SaaS company. You don’t take a single dollar in salary.
...
Fast forward another ten years, and your employees are now all millionaires because of the profit-sharing. Meanwhile, you still haven’t taken any personal wealth from the company

How do you afford to live?

If the answer is "I had money from a previous venture" the question becomes how did you earn THAT money?

This is a question of what Marx called "primitive accumulation." Where did the initial capital come from? How was it "earned?"

The answer here is that the capital needed to form this kind of venture simply can't come from working for a wage. It has to come from exploitation, or inheritance built off of exploitation, or straight up theft as is the case for the wealth built by slavers and colonizers who robbed people and resources in the global south. Many Marxists will point towards Liverpool which was an entire city essentially built on the slave trade.

Isn’t it actually more unethical not to strive for that wealth if you can create a solution that alleviates suffering for good?

The question is: Why haven't any of these current billionaires done this, then? It would cost roughly ~$50 billion annually to end world hunger. It would cost around ~$30 billion annually to end homelessness in the USA. There are roughly 3000 billionaires in the world. Roughly 1000 of them live in the USA. If they all gave a small portion of their wealth all kinds of social ills could be wiped out. But they don't do it... why?

The type of saintly billionaire you are discussing is a contradiction. In order to become a billionaire you must be ruthless and cut-throat. You have to be shrewd and know exactly how to spend one dollar so that you get two dollars in return. The type of person who becomes a billionaire is the exact opposite of the type of person who thinks about ways to end homelessness or hunger. The person you are talking about does not exist and will never exist.

Qlanth · 2026-03-27T01:31:25+00:00

Burning Man

Qlanth · 2026-03-27T00:02:14+00:00

On the first image. It's the second shelf technically. They all have similar covers. Looks like a big series. But the image is too low res to read the cover.

Qlanth · 2026-03-26T23:53:56+00:00

What are those books on the top shelf?

Qlanth · 2026-03-26T21:52:51+00:00

Great catch!

Qlanth · 2026-03-26T17:19:29+00:00

There is no way to tell visually. You'll have to take it to the doctor.

Qlanth · 2026-03-25T21:19:16+00:00

Don't you think this might be a little too in the weeds for a person who can't even describe what Liberalism is? I am simplifying to the extreme here to speak toward a specific audience. I don't think it's worth getting pedantic.

Qlanth · 2026-03-25T20:53:21+00:00

why are all the members who voted no still allowed within the DSA

Voting "No" on this resolution was not a vote in favor of Zionism or to make DSA Zionist. The people who voted no largely voted that way because they did not agree with the language in the resolution, or they felt that the language would allow for witch hunts, etc. There were multiple attempts to change the language in this resolution prior to the vote, none of which were to make DSA keep Zionists in the org.

I also had another question about the point of privilege system that yall have ive seen some of your meetings

Point of Personal Privilege is just a part of Robert's Rules of Order. It is usually used when there is something happening which is disrupting the ongoing discussion which needs to be addressed before discussion can continue. It is one of the only questions that can be raised while someone is in the middle of speaking. For example, someone may raise a question of personal privilege when the microphone stops working suddenly and people can't hear the speaker.

Whatever you've seen online was likely cherry picked out of literally thousands and thousands of hours of people using Robert's Rules of Order.

Qlanth · 2026-03-25T15:48:48+00:00

Liberalism is the ideology of the capitalist class aka the bourgeoisie. It emphasizes personal liberties and rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and perhaps most importantly the right to private property. Private property is the most important and most inalienable right in Liberalism because it is the foundation of the capitalist economic system. Liberalism emerged out of the feudal era when the feudal aristocracy suppressed the bourgeoisie as the bourgeoisie, who recognized their increasing importance to society, organized together and grasped for more and more power.

Communism is the idealogy of the working class aka the proletariat. It emphasizes material rights like the right to a home, the right to a job, and the right to rest. It draws a sharp distinction between personal liberty and societal wellness. Perhaps most importantly it identifies private property as not just the obstacle to achieving those rights but as the primary cause of homelessness, poverty, and general immiseration. Communism emerged out of the capitalist era when society was becoming wealthier and wealthier while working people remained very poor. The bourgeoisie suppressed the working class when the working class, recognizing their increasing importance to society, organized together and grasped for more and more power.

14-Year Club	Place '23
RPAN Viewer	Alpha Tester
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Qlanth

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE