Trump, in my view, is merely another stage in the collapse of a dying Empire. He will not be the last, nor the cause, but is merely a reflection of the decay of Imperialism, in a different and yet similar manner to how Biden was. Ultimately, the only path forward is the same as it always was, working class organization.

There are probably worker organizations and parties around you at the local level you can join. Otherwise, reading theory and studying history of worker movements helps a lot.

No, Marx did not focus on workers managing their own workplaces. This stands in stark contrast with Marx’s conception of the whole of society owning and planning production collectively. You are describing a more Anarchist configuration of society than Marxist. Workers having control of the Means of Production was never meant to be focused on local levels, but broad, societal scales, and while democratic input is necessary, moving beyond the anarchy of production was a requirement.

Solidarity was a US-backed anti-Socialist movement. It worked against the working class and for the petite bourgeoisie.

Planners are not a separate class. Class is not based on hierarchy, but ownership. You are speaking as an Anarchist, not a Marxist. The Marxian basis of class analysis is based on ownership, not simple “power,” otherwise managers would be a separate class. Read Critique of the Gotha Programme and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific if you want to learn more about how Marx and Engels envisioned Socialism and Communism as economically planned.

As for purges and the cultural revolution, liberalism and fascism were oppressed, as well as those seeking to move from a Socialist system collectively owned and planned to a more petite bourgeois mode of production based on councils. Anti-Dühring shows Engels going against such a systen, as it isn’t really based on Marxist class analysis. This isn’t giving workers more control, it’s removing the ability of workers to have an input on the broader economy in favor of increasing local input, which goes against Communism as collective and equal ownership over all of production.

The problems thus far are fairly apparent, you appear to be ascribing anarchist principles to Marx and as such see actually existing Marxist ideas as “betrayals” of such an anarchist ideal.

What do you believe Socialism and Communism looks like? Where is the line between the “administration of things” as Engels describes it, and a state acting as proxy? You keep saying workers didn’t have control, but by all accounts they did, and the material benefits prove this. You may want to read Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. The Material improvements are a symptom of the system at work, not proof of it but support the thesis. You have nothing supporting your thesis.

Dialectical analysis is important, yes, but just calling your analysis dialectical even if it stands in contrast with reality and the social knowledge of hundreds of millions of Marxists requires serious burden of proof. Marxism-Leninism is a science because it evolves, but simply going against the grain without materialist analysis doesn’t mean you have a point.

It’s not easy, nor is it impossible. Organizing is simply hard, and thus we need to see what has worked for others.

I think you’re stuck on this idea of AES being controlled by an “elite,” without doing actual class analysis. It isn’t about being “called Socialist,” it’s about the proletariat being in power. State level planners are not distinct classes. We can see that, in the USSR, for example, the economy was democratized and the Working Class gained massive improvements in material conditions. This shows quite clearly that the Proletariat was indeed in power.

Marxism does require questioning. The problem you’re running into is dismissing the opinions of a supermajority of Marxists worldwide with very little in the way of evidence, and you’re making an error in class analysis. It isn’t about accepting a label, it’s the knowledge that social practice increases knowledge, and that therefore requires an understanding that practicing Marxists, whom overwhelmingly hold to lines such as Marxism-Leninism, likely know more about Marxism than non-practicing individuals on the internet.

You’re drawing a line between workers and party members without backing that in class analysis. The Party is made up of workers, the most politically advanced among them. Marx did not advocate for direct democracy at every level, the form of Democracy in AES is Proletarian Democracy.

What do you mean by “independent unions” being suppressed? Solidarity with what in Poland was suppressed? What is the real force being suppressed here, and is it in the interests of the working class or against it?

Back to the “Elite” argument. What do you believe the “Administration of Things” looks like? Planners and government offiicals are not distinct classes, just like in a business the middle managers are not a class distinct from the Workers. Classes are based on ownership and power, by all historical analysis the Class in power in AES is the Proletariat.

Again, you repeat yourself with respect to the purges and cultural revolution. How did they stifle worker ability to shape society? You aren’t doing analysis here, just repeating a thesis you still need to prove.

The reason you should fall under some degree of label is because Marxists believe theory must be tested by practice. Those who don’t belong to an org and don’t adopt a label that can at least mostly be applied to themselves serve as extremely out of touch with the rest of Marxists, who daily discuss and work to come to a better understanding of theory and practice.

I’m a Marxist-Leninist, for example, and think your outright rejection of Lenin to be a dogmatic error. Is there a label you mostly fit under?

See, this isn’t Marxist analysis, though. AES states have proletarian control at all levels, you simply change to calling them “elites” with no backing or class analysis.

As for the rest of your comment, you don’t provide any of what you say is necessary, like evidence. This isn’t a “true Marxist” argument, rather, it’s you that’s taking an ultraleft dogmatic interpretation claiming every application of Marxism is “false.” I ask you to clarify what kind of Marxist you are because your analysis is divorced from the overwhelming majority of Marxists worldwide, and haven’t provided any analysis.

1. How are workers “excluded from meaningful control?” Again, you don’t say anything about how or why.

2. I need to see some examples of “crushing independent unions and dissent.” What unions, and what dissent?

3. What is an “elite?” What does worker ownership look like in your eyes that differs from the democratic structures in AES? Further, the real material gains for the Working Class is a signifier of the Socialist model, AES worked for the Proletariat above all else.

4. What debate and autonomy was suppressed? What are you saying should have been allowed?

As for why I am asking if you’re a Marxist and what you’ve read, it’s so I can fill in the blanks you are leaving. There’s no discussion being had here, every time I ask for clarification you get more and more vague. If you explained that you’re an Orthodox Marxist, as an example, I know where you’re coming from and can fill in the gaps. If you say you’re a Trot, I can also understand where you’re working from. This isn’t about power-level scaling with reading lists, I want to know where you’re drawing your conclusions from, because your analysis contradicts the overwhelming majority of Marxists worldwide.

Others have done that, we should analyze how they managed to do it and what we can learn from them that applies to our conditions and what does not.

Why are you drawing a line between government ownership and central planning, and Proletarian Control? Government ownership and planning is the form of proletarian control, along with massively expanded worker protections and influence.

This is not analysis that you’re doing. You’re again being more vague, not explaining how government control is bad for Marxism or what “evidence” you have suggesting anything. As a consequence, your comments don’t genuinely offer any clarity, but ask more questions than they answer. Same with your vague assertion that “falling to beliefs” is “religion” when the only one making unbacked assertions here has been you.

What of Marx have you read? What do you think a Socialist economy looks like?

1. Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.

2. How did they “suppress workers?” AES came with dramatic democratizations of the economy, along with providing free, high quality healthcare and education, doubling of life expectancies, and more. Wealth disparity shrank while working class wages rose.

3. How did they contradict “worker control and class abolition?” AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.

4. How did purges and the cultural revolution harm proletarian “agency?” There were issues with those, but it wasn’t about “agency.”

AES is Socialist, in AES states the workers gained massive agency and power, and society begins to be collectively owned and planned.

The problem with your comments is that they say nothing. They make declarations, sure, but they don’t explain any of the how or why, and as a result you get massive pushback and requests for elaboration. If you’re actually a Marxist, you should be doing actual analysis and not making vague, unbacked declarations.

What of Marx have you read? What does a Socialist economy look like?

You didn’t address any of my points, more handwaved thrm away. You’re very silly.

This isn’t contemporary analysis, it’s fringe among Marxists to say the least. The idea that all.AES states were betrayals of Marxism is a viewpoint nearly exclusive to Orthodox Marxism, itself a dogmatic distortion of Marxism, which is theoretically false and has produced no pracyical results, and is extremely western. You provide no background for suggesting AES leaders “distorted Marxism” nor examples of how. This is harmful and doesn’t say anything, if you consider yourself a Marxist I would recommend following the Marxist principle of “no investigation, no right to speak.”

That’s the power of Socialism at play, when Humanity flips the power of Capital over Humanity on its head and becomes the master of Capital, it can achieve great things. Massive infrastructure projects and rapid development are just one aspect of this process, and the US would do well to follow in the footsteps of the Socialist countries to produce along a common plan. The obstacle, of course, is revolution, but rather than being impossible or easy, the truth is that revolution is just hard work.

No worries! It wasn’t obvious with my wording, haha.

I mean my personal log. You can click the 3 dots and then look at my moderation history for content I posted, not moderated. I don’t moderate anything on this account.

Gotcha! Makes sense. I’ll start doing that in the future.

More the opposite, Hexbear is just a Leftist community that started from a much earlier exit from Reddit.

Your initial comment questioned how the PRC’s focus on education will look based on “entrenching compliance” as opposed to “liberating the working class.” This fundamentally presupposes that the PRC isn’t Socialist, yet without doing any legwork to bolster that claim. When pressed, you were even more vague, just saying we need to discuss it.

The PRC is Socialist, ergo educating the Working Class isn’t out of “compliance,” but because it is useful for the Working Class in steering the revolution that already gave the Working Class supremacy over Capital.