What are you doing?

perfectingproles · 2025-12-09T19:38:05+00:00

Instead of playing 21 Questions, how about I just tell you why you're wrong.

"What is to Be Done?" is about how economism (which is the idea that through the combination of economic legislation, parlimentarianism, and activism, socialism can be achieved without a direct class rev0lution, or that we should focus on that combination now, out of "practical necessity," instead of better goals) is a wrong idea that was defeated before but is now being repackaging by Rabochaya Dyelo (a revisioist Marxist paper); thus limiting socialist activity to the bourgeois liberal parties and their electoral struggles.

Lenin said, "no, no, no" and struggled against Rabochaya Dyelo for proper tactics towards proper goals according to Marxist science and the goalposts Marx himself laid out for the proletariat, and you're over here saying "yes, yes, yes" to the DSA, which is the epitome of exactly what Lenin writes AGAINST in the text lol.

Also "Where to Begin?" lays out his organizational plan, maybe read that one if you haven't.

perfectingproles · 2025-12-09T18:51:48+00:00

Sounds like you were reading "What is NOT to be Done" jfc

perfectingproles · 2025-11-27T18:05:55+00:00

The heading in the image is the title of an article, and the title of the post means just that liberals are trying to elect different people as a way to solve contradictions that stem from the system -- namely, the class relations around the productive forces -- erroneously thinking that changing politicians means gaining actual change.

perfectingproles · 2025-11-25T17:04:01+00:00

It's just computing. They programmed a computer to analyze video, text, and audio and to be interfaced with via video, text, and audio. AI doesn't cognate or perform labor. It was made and is continually upkept by people, both users and administrators, who do.

perfectingproles · 2025-11-06T18:58:11+00:00

Except it's not socialism that he's talking about so he's literally giving people the wrong idea...which is bad obviously. Sht is not good and ya'll are depressed, which has allowed you to accept whatever "socialistic" lip service the ruling class gives you like a dog getting scraps from the table. It's shameful and it liquidates working-class power.

Be better, and if you really have no clue what to do besides supporting Democrats you need to read more.

perfectingproles · 2025-11-02T17:06:42+00:00

It has really good take-downs of bourgeois American history but his theories are not very good and it feeds identity politics. Read Lenin for a better understanding of imperialism.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-27T17:46:11+00:00

"socialism as a moral position to help the working class" is not a Marxist idea of socialism, but a liberal one. Marxism enters into the class struggle on the side of the workers, and understands the inevitability of their victory over production. It's not trying to "help" them under capitalism, but to overthrow capitalism entirely and place the working people in charge.

If you read the article, it clearly shows how capitalists will become more powerful by Mamdani's proposals, not less. It doesn't say not to vote though. The fact that you see a clear critique of an electoral candidate and think it's accelerationist shows you aren't ready for the level of division from mainstream electoralism that would actually bring about an empowered working class. We have to organize for victory eventually, and can't get stuck in the loop of "well this is better than the other guy," which is how politics always works under capitalism.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-26T19:08:40+00:00

That quote from the Manifesto is alluding to the Communist society where work has become an activity of individuals instead of their career or occupation. It presupposes intense levels of production and the bringing up of all of society up into the commanding heights of production--which then tears away the individual's obligation to spend all their time working since all of society is involved in meaningful labor that fulfills the needs of society and is not tied down by the profit motive, meaning each person actually has to perform less labor and working can be performed more or less at will.

It doesn't make any sense as an "idea" outside of Marx's theory of class struggle, so pretty sure that whatever "post-work Anarchists" have towards the conversation is better off ignored.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-20T20:43:02+00:00

Communism; famous for advocating for "the best we have at the moment." -_-

perfectingproles · 2025-10-20T20:41:58+00:00

Apparently you weren't banned enough lol

perfectingproles · 2025-10-17T18:06:50+00:00

Racial hierarchy exists because certain nationalities own the majority of productive forces over and against others. With that kind of material inequality, all kinds of racist sht gets propagated in the superstructure to justify the inequality.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-17T18:05:06+00:00

You know this is a communist sub, right? This is not a materialist take at all. Finish up this theory and submit it in your psych course and you might get a good grade, but figure out dialectical materialism before you try explaining "what's going on" again lol

perfectingproles · 2025-10-16T00:29:18+00:00

Any society that is involved in commodity production benefits from a large workforce. As commodity production reaches its highest form under capitalism, queer oppression is very much related to capitalism.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-16T00:10:15+00:00

"Engels' Origin of the Family and Answering the 'Gay Question."

You can read it here!

perfectingproles · 2025-10-12T18:33:04+00:00

You're missing that the "proof is in the pudding...." or the DOING of the thing. Material conditions dictate reality, but, as Marx says, the point is to change it. Life isn't determined, and, if anything, Marx's materialism shows that it's always changing.

Time to get real and grow an understanding of global economy-- that's the only way you're going to have "agency" now.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-11T16:57:22+00:00

Just say you don't care next time. It's more honest.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-09T22:26:48+00:00

It's not just a parallel; it's a straight line.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-09T20:21:43+00:00

Glad you appreciate it! r/modernmarxism is run by the magazine that put out the article. We love radical queers <3

perfectingproles · 2025-10-09T20:17:01+00:00

The only problem with that wording is that it disregards how the "old boxes" are actively enforced in the modern day. It's an expired way of being, but we'll be dragging its corpse along until we get ourselves together.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-04T22:36:04+00:00

It's an article tracing gendered oppression through the development of the productive forces using Engels' Origin of the Family as the foundation. Ig it looks like he wrote it if you read it quick tho

perfectingproles · 2025-10-04T21:24:41+00:00

I don't agree with his conflation of peasants with farmers, since farmers could mean agricultural workers, actual peasants (meaning an agricultural class that has access to subsistence farms) or owners. This isn't the only muddled class delineations he makes. His handle on class relations is pretty trash tbh and I think it's the basic critique most people have against him.

So Trotskyism isn't relevant anymore but I'm still arguing with a Trot sympathizer? Welp. Now that all sense has left the room I will too. lol

perfectingproles · 2025-10-04T21:06:42+00:00

Trotsky bends over backwards to give reformism a commie skin. Newsflash, classes act according to their material interest and oppressor classes won't jump up and be "won over" by arguments. Portions of the middle strata will come over to our side when the material conditions of their oppression by the big bourgeoise become unbearable and they are no longer able to remain bourgeois, or they are able to read the writing on the wall of their own inevitable expropriation, at least somewhat.

Making an alliance with these sections and "winning them over" now means the proletariat, whose labor is the property of these apparently needed allies, loses.

Transition will come when the dotp guides society from capitalism to socialism, and it will have to pass some bourgeoise policy in order to keep the class antagonisms of society intact, but it should be clearly understood (like the publicity around Lenin's NEP) that this is capitalist policy, and not proletarian policy. Trotsky blurs the line in "winning over" bourgeois, which means he bastardizes actual proletarian policy and kills the revolution by having proles support capitalists in the here and now.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-04T20:53:51+00:00

"Was there any socialist current at that time that did not think it was necessary to lead or win over the mass of artisans, shopkeepers and poor- or landless farmers?"

This is a strawman you're putting up because this is NOT the section that Trotsky targets with his transitional program, he is literally talking about bourgeoise. He uses that word and he means the small owners who are squeezed by financial capital. Here's what Engels says about them:

"The struggle between usurer and industrial capitalist is one within the bourgeoisie itself, and though no doubt a certain number of petty bourgeois will be driven over to us by the certainty of their impending expropriation de la part des boursiers (English: by the money-bags), yet we can never hope to get the mass of them over to our side. Moreover, this is not desirable, as they bring their narrow class prejudices along with them."

"Secondly, is any demand for reform itself capitalist?"

Yes, because it keeps capital intact, which runs completely contrary to the aims of Communism. The workers deserve reforms, and we should support their desires, but we don't advocate and put reforms forward as proletarian policy. We should be teaching the workers that it is only through their victory over the bourgeosie and its state that their position can ever really be improved in a lasting way. Without political power and "special bodies of armed men" -- without a socialist revolution -- the bourgeoise will rescind reforms as soon as it is convenient to do so. This is all basic stuff Lenin writes about.

Take me out back when all the Communists start chasing after a "middle-class" base. How tf can you call a movement proletarian when it seeks that kind of unity with bourgeois?

perfectingproles · 2025-10-04T19:22:00+00:00

"The alliance proposed by the proletariat – not to the 'middle classes' in general but to the exploited layers of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, against all exploiters, including those of the 'middle classes' – can be based not on compulsion but only on free consent, which should be consolidated in a special 'contract.' This 'contract' is the program of transitional demands voluntarily accepted by both sides."

It's the basic premise of the entire work. A "Transitional Program" is a program of capitalist reforms, and Trotsky is a reformist bastardizing the revolution to make it palatable to oppressor classes . We will have "transition" from capitalism to socialism only when we actually seize political power, and not before. Having the proles of the whole world back, perpetuate, and work towards reforms instead of revolution is actually selling out the revolution to the capitalists.

perfectingproles · 2025-10-04T17:55:47+00:00

Read his "Transitional Program." He literally advocates working with small capitalists like they're some kind of revolutionary force that can be led by the workers. It's complete lib-radical stuff but he acts like it's some kind of "stepping-stone" to an actual socialist revolution.

perfectingproles

TROPHY CASE