I am interested in politics, and even tho i am not a communist, i am interested in what can be learned from it and i also want to learn more about political ideologies as a whole, instead of speaking out of my ass whenever someone mentions communism and potentially say some bullshit. What do you think?
Edit: thanks for all the answers! I swear i read them all, i just don’t know how to answer to each of them, but thanks for all the recommendations!
Because you continue to stretch Marx’s views into what the Marxists as they identify view today as if they are the same. When they contradict basic things he literally said which is, if you go all the way to the top, exactly what I am saying and why this guy should read Marx. I have no interest going in circles with you again about this so this is the last time I’m going to say this.
Marx did not support the idea of a state, of borders or nations as whatever way you want to define them. Not only were they tools of capitalists but he literally believed socialists should be internationally minded and reach over national borders to support each other, which he did when it came to imperial powers, extending his support to nationalist movements. Which makes complete sense as nationalist movements will be what forms to break away from imperialist control which we both seem to understand but you try to take that and run with it and apply it further to mean Marx supported nationalism when he only supported nationalist movements in the face of imperialism. You can see in how he responded about French Marxists, that is how he would view this type of thinking and how he would respond to modern “Marxists” and socialists who want to fling his name forward as a weapon.
Him supporting nationalist movements is not supporting nationalism, which you seem to continue to argue in support of. Which I find rather exhausting to have to continually repeat what he literally wrote. Like the core things he wrote.
Socialists today are very nationalist. They are essentially wardens of their state for whatever country they are from. Especially here on Lemmy where you will see socialists from the US believe they can warp the state to enact their socialist goals, the opposite of what he believed, or socialists from China who completely defend the country’s entire structure even though the majority of it would be completely against what Marx believed from the continued exploitation of workers, to state controlled media that is highly censored and extremely non-critical of the state and ruling political class. Both of these continue to support the state that enforces class disparity which is like his main argument.
Brandolini’s law, I don’t care to have this discussion with you further. What’s the point? I don’t care if you believe me? I see what you’re saying. It’s wrong in the context of Marx. I’ve seen you post on Lemmy, you do this behavior everywhere and don’t seem to understand how it goes against Marx’s beliefs.
In most simple terms. Be highly critical of every and all states, support all working class regardless of national identity/borders, abolish social classes. That’s Marx in a nutshell, it’s really not that deep or hard to understand. Socialists today are not critical of their state especially in places like China and in countries like the US they might be critical of the state but they do not work to abolish social classes. Across the board most socialists don’t actually support workers regardless of borders. Many people here who identify and run around with the word of Marx are also against Ukraine or the US or China or Russia when there are workers in all those countries who we should be working to unify with. So I stand by my very first comment and have zero interest continuing this pointless discussion with someone who genuinely is trying to bend what Marx said to fit with what self identifying Marxists today say as if they are the same thing, they are not. Marx would not support these “Marxists” today.
Again, nations are not states. They aren’t borders, they aren’t whatever confusing idea you believe they are. Marx factually supported proletarian internationalism, which included explicit support for Irish and Polish liberation, to list two examples, against colonialism. Reaching over national borders to support national liberation is a core facet of internationalism as Marx believed the proletariat has more in common with each other than their own bourgeoisie. These ideas are mutually supporting, not contradictory.
You continue to butcher the national question as it exists today. Marx supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a state that cannot but wither as it abolishes class. Socialist states do not stand against Marx, but for them. Your idealist understanding of Marx is closer to anarchism than Marxism. National sovereignty does not mean the establishment of permanent borders or anything of the sort. It means that a nation oppressing another cannot be free, a call for the international proletariat to support the proletariat in oppressed countries against the oppressor countries. This is internationalism.
Regarding China, their socialist market economy is entirely in line with Marx. The basis of markets are decentralized production, the basis of socialized production is highly centralized production. So as to not introduce antagonisms, and develop the productive forces rapidly, markets are employed in underdeveloped industries. This is straight out of Principles of Communism and Manifesto of the Communist Party when Marx and Engels talk about how it is impossible to abolish private property at one stroke as its impossible to multiply the productive forces to their necessary levels overnight.
You collapse internationalism into blindness to imperialism and colonialism. This is the peak of revisionism against Marx, who I again will state supported the Polish and Irish against colonialism as a necessary blow to capitalism for both oppressor and oppressed.
I don’t know what you’re reading. You’re literally reiterating what I have already said in past comments and then being super weird and condescending about it. This is why talking to you is pointless as hell.
To put it very simply, Marx’s internationalism supported movements against colonialism and imperialism. He believed the proletariat had more in common with the proletariat of other countries, and called upon them all to work together. This, however, as understood by Marx meant supporting the movement of Ireland as a whole against the British Empire, of Poland against the Russian Empire. He correctly understood that without combatting colonialism, the proletariat of oppressor and oppressed countries could not be free. The quest for national sovereignty is principally an anti-colonial movement.
The abolition of borders is not the same as the abolition of nations. Marx never stated that the nation would wither, but that states would. He did not believe nationality to be a “bourgeois construct.” The state, borders, all of this withers as society gradually collectivizes across the entire globe, in international revolution, according to Marx and Engels alone. At this point, no developed theories of nations or imperialism or self-determination exists yet as core to Marxism-Leninism, but even within Marx himself there is a strong understanding that colonialism is a barrier to proletarian revolution, not merely capitalism at a state level.
“Workers of all countries, unite!” The international struggle is one that combats the bourgeoisie of all states, of all nations. However, it principally fights the colonizing bourgeoisie as the primary antagonist when this is a barrier to revolution, as it was in Poland and Ireland. This is the national question before Lenin and Stalin.
Any condescension you see on my part is a response to the repeated, incorrect claims that I am revising Marx. Reading Marx’s work on Ireland and Poland make it clear that Marx understood colonialism to be a core obstacle, and thus simply saying “fight the bourgeoisie” without any nuance to it would be reductive and vulgarize Marx. This is why Marx supported the Statesian north against the south, despite both sides being bourgeois.
I’ve literally said these things but you’re just waxing on about them to further your condescension and I just don’t respect it.
I suggest you scroll all the way to my first few comments. Maybe you will understand why I am calling socialists today national socialists and telling you that Marx would not support them. These nationalist revolutions you’re talking about have nothing to do with the national socialists today who want to just cheer on their version of imperialism and cheer the downfall of those they’re told are their enemies. It completely goes against what Marx was talking about and your defense of them is where your contradiction lies. I don’t care about your opinions, but you keep pushing them.