It would certainly be good for the working class if Bernie took a more militant stance, but that hasn’t been his game. He has postured his whole life as a radical that works within the system, not against it, which is why his victories have been relatively few compared to what they could have been. It’s up to us to build a working class movement. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you want to check something out, but the short answer is that workers need to organize, and Bernie won’t advocate for something that goes against the present system.
I’m more interested in Anarchist solutions over authoritarian theory. Repeating the mistakes of the USSR, North Korea and the CCP is not my idea of a good outcome.
What do you mean “authoritarian theory?” What Anarchist “solutions?” This is a silly comment, the USSR, PRC, etc haven’t been perfect but came with massive strides for the working class, such as doubling life expectancy, increasing access to healthcare, democratizing the economy and government, and more.
The link in my previous comment goes over it quite well, better than I could. But I could provide some books if you prefer that format.
came with massive strides for the working class, such as doubling life expectancy, increasing access to healthcare, democratizing the economy and government, and more.
If we look at modern day China, the life of the average citizen there seems pretty equivalent to the average citizen in a capitalist country. It’s difficult to imagine a Chinese employee at Foxxcon making expensive electronics for wealthy westerners at subsistence wages is better off than an American Walmart employee barely making ends meet, or a British NHS worker also being exploited.
To me, it seems like all such a waste of human life for so many to have died in establishing the PRC, only for it to become no different than the capitalists they claimed they were fighting against.
The link in my previous comment goes over it quite well, better than I could. But I could provide some books if you prefer that format.
Given that one of the comments hearted by the author claims that AES states are “State Capitalist and not Communist,” I know the video author doesn’t actually have much of an understanding of Marxism to begin with, or thinks Marxism isn’t Socialist, neither of which are worth engaging with.
If we look at modern day China, the life of the average citizen there seems pretty equivalent to the average citizen in a capitalist country. It’s difficult to imagine a Chinese employee at Foxxcon making expensive electronics for wealthy westerners at subsistence wages is better off than an American Walmart employee barely making ends meet, or a British NHS worker also being exploited.
If we look at a country that was as poor as Haiti is today at the middle of the 20th century, and can compare it to the most Imperialist countries in the world, then that’s astounding progress, moreover the lives of the average worker in the PRC are more stable with better safety nets and infrastructure than the US.
To me, it seems like all such a waste of human life for so many to have died in establishing the PRC, only for it to become no different than the capitalists they claimed they were fighting against.
The PRC is different in numerous ways, the simplest being that it’s Socialist. This Socialism is why the PRC managed to eradicate extreme poverty extremely rapidly, doubled life expectancy, and continue to focus on green energy without horribly exploiting the Global South. Having less than half the economy in the Private Sector, a proportion that shrinks as companies centralize and make themselves better able to be centrally planned, in no way means the PRC is a Capitalist country.
know the video author doesn’t actually have much of an understanding of Marxism to begin with, or thinks Marxism isn’t Socialist, neither of which are worth engaging with.
Well, I can’t speak for what the comments suggest, but I can’t say I find anything in his presentation disagreeable, so I suppose I’m not worth engaging with as well 😅
This Socialism is why the PRC managed to eradicate extreme poverty
China still has billionaire business owners, party elites, and a working class that still does not own the means of production despite becoming a world power. I can only assume all of the Chinese who currently suffer in poverty under capitalist businesses in China are simply patriots sacrificing themselves for the great cause.
Well, I can’t speak for what the comments suggest, but I can’t say I find anything in his presentation disagreeable, so I suppose I’m not worth engaging with as well 😅
I’d really rather not watch an hour of what I heard through skimming. If you can give me some points you personally stand by, rather than require I watch an hour long video to engage with you, that would be better in my opinion. I will say, from what I skimmed, he misframes Marx and Engels (despite using direct quotations, he misframes their meaning), and tries to take a simultaneous “Left-Communist” and Anarchist stance.
An example of this misframing is the manner in which the Marxist idea of the State is presented. When going over how the State “withers away,” the video author paints it as though the whole of government withers away, and divorces it from Scientific Socialism. In reality, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat gradually absorbs Private Property into the Public Sector to the degree to which it develops enough to be centrally planned.
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
These errors, along with the general misframing of Lenin, usage of quotations from Bakunin proved false through historical experience, and general framing of Anarchism as “true socialism” and Marxism as “false” simply because Marxists adopted Lenin’s contributions to Marxism leads to a video with lots of quotes and facts cited, but little in the way of actual substance. You may be interested in the article Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” which explains the difference between Socialism as a reality and Socialism as a pure, untainted ideal (that false ideal goes against Marx, ironically enough, as he was a Materialist), though given my admittance to largely ignoring your source I understand if you don’t want to.
China has the same amount of homelessness per capita as the US (2.5 million in total).
Those numbers are from 2011, before the PRC really ramped up its eradication of extreme poverty, which it declared complete in 2021, 10 full years after your source was taken. This is either dishonest framing, or a fun new fact for you to hear about. The point is, this is no longer anywhere close to true now and the PRC is much better than the US when it comes to homelessness now.
China still has billionaire business owners, party elites, and a working class that still does not own the means of production despite becoming a world power. I can only assume all of the Chinese who currently suffer in poverty under capitalist businesses in China are simply patriots sacrificing themselves for the great cause.
This is an anti-Marxist perspective that ignores the entire foundations of Marxism, Scientific Socialism. Again, tapping the Engels quote from earlier, Private Property is absorbed into the Public Sector by the degree to which it has developed sufficiently. At different levels of development, different sectors and different tools, ie markets vs public planning, are better or worse. Markets are good for development initially until they coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which the CPC increases control over and eventually folds into the Public Sector. China is still facing rapid improvements in average Purchasing Power Parity, real wages, and more, and the Private Sector is shrinking. This is because Socialism has stages in the Marxian view. You don’t have to be a Marxist, of course, but it helps to understand Marxism to critique Marxists!
I think a recurring issue between us will be the matter of what historical sources we individually determine to be trustworthy, which is ultimately informing which methods we prefer in achieving socialism.
I think his representation of Marx, Engels, and Lenin are accurate, and that Bakunin’s assertions were proven correct by history. The historical record I trust shows me that scientific communism and central planning are fundamentally incapable of achieving the goals of communism, as despite the material improvements they can make for certain people, they have resulted in extreme unnecessary death and suffering for others.
You could ask me for specifics, and I could point to things like the Holodomor, the Kronstadt Rebellion, etc, and you could point me to your trusted sources that frames those things in a way that would eliminate any cognitive dissonance they may cause.
But the problem is, I don’t trust those sources, nor do you trust mine. In the end, we’re left believing the other has drank the wrong cool-aid, and if only they could see the truth I see, they would understand, and take up the same tools as I.
This is a common enough problem between people, and I know not how to overcome it, short of both of us directly experiencing each of our ideal societies together and determining which is more conducive to the human experience.
It would certainly be good for the working class if Bernie took a more militant stance, but that hasn’t been his game. He has postured his whole life as a radical that works within the system, not against it, which is why his victories have been relatively few compared to what they could have been. It’s up to us to build a working class movement. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you want to check something out, but the short answer is that workers need to organize, and Bernie won’t advocate for something that goes against the present system.
Compared to what they could have been? Zero?
Bernie certainly isn’t useless, but I believe he could have had more success had he used his energy with proper theory and practice.
I’m more interested in Anarchist solutions over authoritarian theory. Repeating the mistakes of the USSR, North Korea and the CCP is not my idea of a good outcome.
But you’re right about Bernie.
What do you mean “authoritarian theory?” What Anarchist “solutions?” This is a silly comment, the USSR, PRC, etc haven’t been perfect but came with massive strides for the working class, such as doubling life expectancy, increasing access to healthcare, democratizing the economy and government, and more.
The link in my previous comment goes over it quite well, better than I could. But I could provide some books if you prefer that format.
If we look at modern day China, the life of the average citizen there seems pretty equivalent to the average citizen in a capitalist country. It’s difficult to imagine a Chinese employee at Foxxcon making expensive electronics for wealthy westerners at subsistence wages is better off than an American Walmart employee barely making ends meet, or a British NHS worker also being exploited.
To me, it seems like all such a waste of human life for so many to have died in establishing the PRC, only for it to become no different than the capitalists they claimed they were fighting against.
Given that one of the comments hearted by the author claims that AES states are “State Capitalist and not Communist,” I know the video author doesn’t actually have much of an understanding of Marxism to begin with, or thinks Marxism isn’t Socialist, neither of which are worth engaging with.
If we look at a country that was as poor as Haiti is today at the middle of the 20th century, and can compare it to the most Imperialist countries in the world, then that’s astounding progress, moreover the lives of the average worker in the PRC are more stable with better safety nets and infrastructure than the US.
The PRC is different in numerous ways, the simplest being that it’s Socialist. This Socialism is why the PRC managed to eradicate extreme poverty extremely rapidly, doubled life expectancy, and continue to focus on green energy without horribly exploiting the Global South. Having less than half the economy in the Private Sector, a proportion that shrinks as companies centralize and make themselves better able to be centrally planned, in no way means the PRC is a Capitalist country.
Well, I can’t speak for what the comments suggest, but I can’t say I find anything in his presentation disagreeable, so I suppose I’m not worth engaging with as well 😅
China has the same amount of homelessness per capita as the US (2.5 million in total).
China still has billionaire business owners, party elites, and a working class that still does not own the means of production despite becoming a world power. I can only assume all of the Chinese who currently suffer in poverty under capitalist businesses in China are simply patriots sacrificing themselves for the great cause.
I’d really rather not watch an hour of what I heard through skimming. If you can give me some points you personally stand by, rather than require I watch an hour long video to engage with you, that would be better in my opinion. I will say, from what I skimmed, he misframes Marx and Engels (despite using direct quotations, he misframes their meaning), and tries to take a simultaneous “Left-Communist” and Anarchist stance.
An example of this misframing is the manner in which the Marxist idea of the State is presented. When going over how the State “withers away,” the video author paints it as though the whole of government withers away, and divorces it from Scientific Socialism. In reality, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat gradually absorbs Private Property into the Public Sector to the degree to which it develops enough to be centrally planned.
These errors, along with the general misframing of Lenin, usage of quotations from Bakunin proved false through historical experience, and general framing of Anarchism as “true socialism” and Marxism as “false” simply because Marxists adopted Lenin’s contributions to Marxism leads to a video with lots of quotes and facts cited, but little in the way of actual substance. You may be interested in the article Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” which explains the difference between Socialism as a reality and Socialism as a pure, untainted ideal (that false ideal goes against Marx, ironically enough, as he was a Materialist), though given my admittance to largely ignoring your source I understand if you don’t want to.
Those numbers are from 2011, before the PRC really ramped up its eradication of extreme poverty, which it declared complete in 2021, 10 full years after your source was taken. This is either dishonest framing, or a fun new fact for you to hear about. The point is, this is no longer anywhere close to true now and the PRC is much better than the US when it comes to homelessness now.
This is an anti-Marxist perspective that ignores the entire foundations of Marxism, Scientific Socialism. Again, tapping the Engels quote from earlier, Private Property is absorbed into the Public Sector by the degree to which it has developed sufficiently. At different levels of development, different sectors and different tools, ie markets vs public planning, are better or worse. Markets are good for development initially until they coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which the CPC increases control over and eventually folds into the Public Sector. China is still facing rapid improvements in average Purchasing Power Parity, real wages, and more, and the Private Sector is shrinking. This is because Socialism has stages in the Marxian view. You don’t have to be a Marxist, of course, but it helps to understand Marxism to critique Marxists!
2 good articles are Why Public Property? and Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism if you want to go more in-depth.
I think a recurring issue between us will be the matter of what historical sources we individually determine to be trustworthy, which is ultimately informing which methods we prefer in achieving socialism.
I think his representation of Marx, Engels, and Lenin are accurate, and that Bakunin’s assertions were proven correct by history. The historical record I trust shows me that scientific communism and central planning are fundamentally incapable of achieving the goals of communism, as despite the material improvements they can make for certain people, they have resulted in extreme unnecessary death and suffering for others.
You could ask me for specifics, and I could point to things like the Holodomor, the Kronstadt Rebellion, etc, and you could point me to your trusted sources that frames those things in a way that would eliminate any cognitive dissonance they may cause.
But the problem is, I don’t trust those sources, nor do you trust mine. In the end, we’re left believing the other has drank the wrong cool-aid, and if only they could see the truth I see, they would understand, and take up the same tools as I.
This is a common enough problem between people, and I know not how to overcome it, short of both of us directly experiencing each of our ideal societies together and determining which is more conducive to the human experience.