Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.
Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.
Critique those regimes, which shouldn’t be conflated with the original ideals of communism as a philosophy for human equality. The horrible ones were against communists.
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.”
Investigating Lenin, Stalin, and Mao applies Marxist analysis, not dogma. Their regimes centralized power, suppressed workers, and contradicted Marx’s principles of worker control and class abolition. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution harmed proletarian agency, deviating from socialism.
Equating AES states to socialism isn’t proven. This knowledge isn’t “Western” but aligns with Marxism’s demand for accountability. Marxism thrives on self-criticism; dismissing critique stifles its revolutionary potential. “Investigate” is a good guideline, and baseless assumption for the lack of aren’t helpful. Dogmatism distorts Marxism.
Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.
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.
How did they contradict “worker control and class abolition?” AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.
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?
Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.
Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.
Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.
Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?
The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t “actually a Marxist” or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?
How are workers “excluded from meaningful control?” Again, you don’t say anything about how or why.
I need to see some examples of “crushing independent unions and dissent.” What unions, and what dissent?
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.
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.
In AES states, decision-making was often centralized in the hands of party officials or bureaucrats, not the workers themselves. Marx wanted workers to manage their workplaces directly.
Independent unions and dissenting voices were suppressed. Examples include the USSR controlling unions and the repression of Solidarity in Poland.
An elite is a small group in power, often controlling the state and economy. Worker ownership means workers democratically managing their workplaces without a ruling class.
The state suppressed critical debate, as seen in Stalin’s purges and China’s Cultural Revolution, stifling workers’ ability to shape society.
I don’t have a need to fall under any labels. I agree on the lack of discussion and sense there’s a need to be judged for some invisible requirements which seem more vague than what I comment.
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?
Mortality rates in the USSR and PRC went so far down once Socialism was implemented that life expectancy doubled, and nearly doubled in the case of Cuba. Communism was horrible to the previous ruling class, but for the vast majority of people is marked by massive improvements in key metrics like literacy rates, housing rates, lower poverty rates, and life expectancy. These countries did not get worse with Socialism, they were hellish beforehand and it was the Communists that ceaselessly worked to fix their broken countries.
On a planet that produces more food than can be eaten by all the humans living on it, a holocaust worth of people starve to death every year. But this isn’t counted or considered because it’s ‘natural.’
Meanwhile if a country manages to escape that system, it is subjected to brutal siege warfare and sabotage. And when that isolation is compounded by floods or famine, the deaths suffered are considered as failures of the system and deliberate brutality.
You grew up in the most propagandized society in the history of the world and have not done any critical examination to dispel its effect.
Yes they did, and many people died from it, for some reason poeple don’t understand how horrible communism is
Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.
Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.
Critique those regimes, which shouldn’t be conflated with the original ideals of communism as a philosophy for human equality. The horrible ones were against communists.
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.”
Investigating Lenin, Stalin, and Mao applies Marxist analysis, not dogma. Their regimes centralized power, suppressed workers, and contradicted Marx’s principles of worker control and class abolition. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution harmed proletarian agency, deviating from socialism.
Equating AES states to socialism isn’t proven. This knowledge isn’t “Western” but aligns with Marxism’s demand for accountability. Marxism thrives on self-criticism; dismissing critique stifles its revolutionary potential. “Investigate” is a good guideline, and baseless assumption for the lack of aren’t helpful. Dogmatism distorts Marxism.
Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.
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.
How did they contradict “worker control and class abolition?” AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.
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?
Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.
Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.
Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.
Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?
The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t “actually a Marxist” or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?
How are workers “excluded from meaningful control?” Again, you don’t say anything about how or why.
I need to see some examples of “crushing independent unions and dissent.” What unions, and what dissent?
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.
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.
In AES states, decision-making was often centralized in the hands of party officials or bureaucrats, not the workers themselves. Marx wanted workers to manage their workplaces directly.
Independent unions and dissenting voices were suppressed. Examples include the USSR controlling unions and the repression of Solidarity in Poland.
An elite is a small group in power, often controlling the state and economy. Worker ownership means workers democratically managing their workplaces without a ruling class.
The state suppressed critical debate, as seen in Stalin’s purges and China’s Cultural Revolution, stifling workers’ ability to shape society.
I don’t have a need to fall under any labels. I agree on the lack of discussion and sense there’s a need to be judged for some invisible requirements which seem more vague than what I comment.
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?
500 GORILLION 💀 NO 📱
Mortality rates in the USSR and PRC went so far down once Socialism was implemented that life expectancy doubled, and nearly doubled in the case of Cuba. Communism was horrible to the previous ruling class, but for the vast majority of people is marked by massive improvements in key metrics like literacy rates, housing rates, lower poverty rates, and life expectancy. These countries did not get worse with Socialism, they were hellish beforehand and it was the Communists that ceaselessly worked to fix their broken countries.
On a planet that produces more food than can be eaten by all the humans living on it, a holocaust worth of people starve to death every year. But this isn’t counted or considered because it’s ‘natural.’
Meanwhile if a country manages to escape that system, it is subjected to brutal siege warfare and sabotage. And when that isolation is compounded by floods or famine, the deaths suffered are considered as failures of the system and deliberate brutality.
You grew up in the most propagandized society in the history of the world and have not done any critical examination to dispel its effect.
Removed by mod