Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.
Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state’s control, aiming to protect workers’ interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.
Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers themselves but with the system that centralizes control rather than allowing workers direct control over their labor.
The purges and Cultural Revolution were significant in stifling workers’ ability to shape society, as they involved the suppression of dissent and independent thought. These events were not just about removing political enemies, but about curbing the voices of those advocating for a more democratic and worker-controlled system. Marx envisioned socialism as a society in which workers could actively shape their own futures, not one dominated by a centralized authority.
Labels like Marxist-Leninist help unify political efforts, but they should not limit critical thinking or prevent independent analysis. To some labels provide clarity and structure, and there are also we adapting to changing conditions avoiding rigid dogmatism.
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.
Marx’s vision focused on collective ownership and planning by society as a whole, not local control by individual workplaces. Workers should manage production collectively, as a class, not in isolated units, which is more in line with anarchism.
Solidarity was a workers’ movement, and its contradictions and external influences didn’t change its core goal of improving worker conditions.
Planners don’t create a new class as long as they serve collective ownership. Marx’s focus was on ensuring collective control, not creating a separate managerial class.
The purges and Cultural Revolution on paper aimed at suppressing reactionary forces, but sometimes limited workers’ ability to influence the economy. Protecting socialism doesn’t come at the expense of worker participation.
Marxism supports centralized planning by the working class, while anarchism favors local autonomy. Marx’s approach is about centralizing control for equality, not decentralizing into smaller units.
Solidarity was a Capitalist-backed anti-Socialist movement, just because workers participated didn’t make it in the interests of the workers.
Planners in AES serve collective ownership, I already gave you a couple books to read on to show this is the case. You can continue to assert the opposite, and you’ll continue to be wrong.
More than anything, your definition of Socialism appears to be “executes Marxist principles perfectly and without flaw,” which is dogmatism and anti-Materialist. This is the biggest error, and why in your eyes Socialism will likely never exist. The thing is, Marx himself would laugh at that notion.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. “State Capitalism” refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn’t democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that “true” socialism doesn’t have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of “Marxism” has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while AES states stand as clear examples of working class victories.
You draw hard lines where they don’t exist. You failed to explain how the Soviet Democratic model stands in contrast to Marx and Engels in any material way, just vague assertions otherwise.
Overall, critique is important, but more than for criticism itself. Critique is important if correctly applied to what worked and what did not, and is only further useful if it is actionable. It appears your critique is for the sake of critique, which explains the lack of any common agreements with other Marxists and the apparent lack of org affiliation.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.
Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state’s control, aiming to protect workers’ interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.
Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers themselves but with the system that centralizes control rather than allowing workers direct control over their labor.
The purges and Cultural Revolution were significant in stifling workers’ ability to shape society, as they involved the suppression of dissent and independent thought. These events were not just about removing political enemies, but about curbing the voices of those advocating for a more democratic and worker-controlled system. Marx envisioned socialism as a society in which workers could actively shape their own futures, not one dominated by a centralized authority.
Labels like Marxist-Leninist help unify political efforts, but they should not limit critical thinking or prevent independent analysis. To some labels provide clarity and structure, and there are also we adapting to changing conditions avoiding rigid dogmatism.
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.
Marx’s vision focused on collective ownership and planning by society as a whole, not local control by individual workplaces. Workers should manage production collectively, as a class, not in isolated units, which is more in line with anarchism.
Solidarity was a workers’ movement, and its contradictions and external influences didn’t change its core goal of improving worker conditions.
Planners don’t create a new class as long as they serve collective ownership. Marx’s focus was on ensuring collective control, not creating a separate managerial class.
The purges and Cultural Revolution on paper aimed at suppressing reactionary forces, but sometimes limited workers’ ability to influence the economy. Protecting socialism doesn’t come at the expense of worker participation.
Marxism supports centralized planning by the working class, while anarchism favors local autonomy. Marx’s approach is about centralizing control for equality, not decentralizing into smaller units.
Cool, so now your stance is largely flip-flopping and AES is Socialist, glad we are in agreement finally.
There is no flip-flopping. AES does not align with the Marxist principles.
Solidarity was a Capitalist-backed anti-Socialist movement, just because workers participated didn’t make it in the interests of the workers.
Planners in AES serve collective ownership, I already gave you a couple books to read on to show this is the case. You can continue to assert the opposite, and you’ll continue to be wrong.
More than anything, your definition of Socialism appears to be “executes Marxist principles perfectly and without flaw,” which is dogmatism and anti-Materialist. This is the biggest error, and why in your eyes Socialism will likely never exist. The thing is, Marx himself would laugh at that notion.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. “State Capitalism” refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn’t democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that “true” socialism doesn’t have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of “Marxism” has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while AES states stand as clear examples of working class victories.
You draw hard lines where they don’t exist. You failed to explain how the Soviet Democratic model stands in contrast to Marx and Engels in any material way, just vague assertions otherwise.
Overall, critique is important, but more than for criticism itself. Critique is important if correctly applied to what worked and what did not, and is only further useful if it is actionable. It appears your critique is for the sake of critique, which explains the lack of any common agreements with other Marxists and the apparent lack of org affiliation.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Good night.