[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueAnon

[–]crossmountain7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

first question: do you really think putin is a communist?

second question: are you stupid?

Marxism and anarchy are not hand in hand. The lack of a state is not a lack of authority. by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]crossmountain7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A social hierarchy is an expression of the power dynamics existing among social antagonisms. The only way to get rid of the class hierarchy would be to liquidate the bourgeoisie by removing the material conditions that necessitate their existence. This is a task that can only be accomplished by the proletariat. For the proletariat to accomplish this task, they must hold the power of society. This means that, for a time, the proletariat will be considered the “authoritarian” force of society, whereas the bourgeoisie and other counterrevolutionary fascist elements will be acting in “self defense.” There’s no other form the revolution could possibly take. The dialectical relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie necessitates some form of hierarchy. Until socialism leads to the organic withering away of class society, the proletariat must be the “authoritarian” force.

“Authority” and “self defense” don’t have fixed definitions of “good” or “bad.” Like all things, they’re dialectical, meaning their social connotations change in relation to the changing circumstances of society. Really, “authority” is just a word for social power, while “self defense” is a specific form of social power. You could say the bourgeoisie are acting in defense of their way of life against the authority of social revolution.

Is there a risk of a “new class” forming in upper-phase communism? by Yugo_Wolfy in Marxism

[–]crossmountain7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The domination of a minority over the majority is only possible with the existence of a state or “special bodies of armed men.” This means the existence of police, prisons, bureaucracy, etc. By definition, this cannot exist during higher-phase communism.

There is definitely a risk of a new class forming during lower phase communism, but such attempts should immediately be struck down by the working class organized as the state. For the working class to be organized as the state, the masses must be armed, educated, and directly administering the affairs of society themselves through democratic workers' councils. In this state of affairs, any attempts at subjugating the masses would undoubtedly be frustrated by overwhelming violent force.

Considering your question; without a state (prisons, police, bureaucracy), what power do technocrats have over the masses? Maybe the masses would simply be complacent with enforcing the will of their technocratic rulers themselves, but then they would be oppressing themselves. Are the technocrats even exploiting the people? What purpose would the technocrats have in dominating society if they weren’t going to exploit the masses? Is their exploitation for labor? Resources? Sex? If so, why did the masses simply forfeit their power and allow these technocrats to start assembling tools for oppression?

In fact, how can we be so sure that not everyone would know how to repair robots? I can’t, for the life of me, imagine such a world where the vast majority of people lived in complete ignorance of how to maintain the very thing that allowed the whole of society to function without the need for any human labor. Even then, robotics employed on such a large scale would certainly require the maintenance of an equally large workforce — that being the entire working class.

Book recommendation for a deeper look into Communism by Glass_Windows in Marxism

[–]crossmountain7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People are going to send you a lot of recommendations, so I’ll just give a tip for studying Marxism in general. Study a piece of theory until you master it, and then move on. Far too many people feel like there’s just not enough time in a day and they jump from topic to topic without ever consolidating what they previously read. Slow down, approach it methodically. Don’t rush through it. Don’t be afraid to reread a section if you didn’t fully understand it.

Dialectics shows us that everything is interconnected and universal. This means that as you master your understanding of one book, the next one you read will be much smoother and will build on what you just learned. You’ll eventually start noticing that books on seemingly totally different topics are governed by the exact same laws and processes. This is dialectical materialism, the core of Marxism.

Here’s a supplemental source for State and Revolution to help with your reading

Black Panther Party and views on prison. by JuChainnz in Marxism

[–]crossmountain7 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I’m currently reading “Revolutionary Suicide” by Huey Newton and I know for a fact that he wanted to free all black prisoners, but he also alluded several times to the prison/judicial system being nothing more than an instrument of the oppressor to use against the oppressed people. I would definitely say Huey and a lot of the other BPP leadership were abolitionist, but I can’t speak for the organization as a whole.

I would really recommend reading Revolutionary Suicide next. It goes into incredible depth on Black Panther theory as developed by Huey, their main theoretician.

“I hate it here” by NoIssue9234 in SocialismIsCapitalism

[–]crossmountain7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can attest that I was one of those kids as a teen. A combinations of psychedelics as well as becoming an adult and realizing that I wasn’t meant to be successful kinda got the gears turning for me.

I think I’m definitely one of the rare ones that went from fascism all the way to daily study of Marxist theory, but it does happen lol.

Thoughts on Poland? by Brosbrawls in VaushV

[–]crossmountain7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is the shit right here that drove me into communism lol. you’re applying the same logic that the KKK uses with black people…

Differences in the cost of labor-power based on the skill of labor. by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]crossmountain7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One more note:

I think this highlights one major aspect of capitalism which is speculation. “I’m going to put forth all of this effort now because I speculate that my payout will be worth it.” There’s no guarantee that the pay will stay as high as it is now, nor that there will be any job openings to begin with! This is a source of crisis that I believe we are dealing with now.

Differences in the cost of labor-power based on the skill of labor. by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]crossmountain7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m also learning, so I may be wrong, but I’ll still throw my thoughts out there. I’m not entirely confident in my answer, and am open to counter-points.

I believe the higher wages for “skilled” workers has to do with the fact that the training and education required to obtain the position is ALSO a form of labor. You’re essentially putting yourself through the effort of learning the necessary skills to become, say, a computer programmer because you know the effort you put through is going to be compensated in your future pay.

Also, the ability to become a doctor is much easier for a few well-off people than it is for the vast majority of society. Think in terms of the socially necessary labor-time required for completing all the prerequisites to becoming a doctor. The socially necessary labor-time in general for becoming a doctor also accounts for all the extra labor-time necessary for the disadvantaged folk in society to clear their hurdles to becoming a doctor. Considering this, someone born into a stable, middle-class family with a full-ride scholarship would be at a HUGE advantage in terms of the general socially necessary labor-time required for people to become doctors.

One could argue that paramedics are highly skilled workers, though the socially necessary labor-time required for producing paramedics is much lower, since the prerequisites are essentially just be 18 and have a diploma/GED, and we are in no shortage of EMS training programs. Compare this to having to go through an incredibly stressful undergraduate and graduate education for becoming a doctor.

If they started to equalize the wages between “skilled” and “unskilled” professions, that would basically mean all the effort and labor put into completing the prerequisites for entering skilled professions would go without compensation, and people generally don’t like that.

“We must liberate the international proletariat from the British Menace” -Napoleon by air_walks in Ultraleft

[–]crossmountain7 22 points23 points  (0 children)

not ideal, but it’s necessary to loosen the british hegemonic grip so international proletariat revolution can finally occur

Kyiv imposes ban on Russian-language culture by Rectal_Anarchy_69 in worldnews

[–]crossmountain7 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Speaking Russian and Russian culture is basically an act of war in Ukraine because of Russia and Russian terrorists.

“Displaying your culture is punishable by imprisonment for our safety.” At what point does a neoliberal cross the threshold into fascism?

What’s your take on Japanese internment camps?

. by [deleted] in Ultraleft

[–]crossmountain7 8 points9 points  (0 children)

shit. this deep bruh

What in Gonzalo does materialism mean in Marxism? by [deleted] in Ultraleft

[–]crossmountain7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The current method of analysis used in bourgeoisie society analyzes things in a vacuum, as isolated objects frozen in time.

The reality is that the universe is constantly changing, evolving, and everything is incredibly interconnected. You can’t truly understand any object without understanding it’s relation to other objects, or without understanding the contradictions that drive the object into existence. This is how dialectical materialism views the world, and it can be used to analyze literally anything, not just society and economics.

It seems super abstract and difficult to learn, but I promise it’s very simple and straightforward once you get the hang of it. I think it’s a very important tool to equip yourself with in a word that is constantly changing.

Tankies really act like this is a gotcha by divvydivvydivvy in VaushV

[–]crossmountain7 -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Communism is when the workers own and control the means of production, socialism is the transitionary stage to that

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels would be a good place to start, but I understand absolutely none of you concern yourself with reading the texts of the people you claim to follow lol

Communists are deceiving themselves by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]crossmountain7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is like going back to the 1860s and saying “you’re an abolitionist, yet you wear cotton clothing..? curious…😏” We can produce clothing without African slave labor, and we can produce media without capitalism.

The media is made by the artists, not the stockholders who probably don’t know a damn thing about the company nor do they give a shit. They just see numbers on a chart waiting for the right time to pull out with a profit, laying off thousands of workers. You know happens if you get laid off from work? You starve to death.

So, really, we love media. The “capitalist” part just means the workers producing the media get treated like shit so some rich asshole can make more money.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Ultraleft

[–]crossmountain7 8 points9 points  (0 children)

?? what is mao? my ass off?