The Brunch Brigade, I call them.

If we take your “revolution should only be supported if the government ceases to function” stance to its logical conclusion, that means you are against the American, French, Vietnamese, Cuban, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, right? Even if previous conditions were misery, because the government still functioned, they should have stuck with it? I don’t agree that the pragmatic stance is to continue voting democrat, because disparity is rising and Capitalism is crumbling. Democrats will not support policies that could endanger their own power, and that extends to Capitalists. I think you confuse “pragmatic” for “easy.”

Secondly, Marxists are revolutionary, not Blanquist. Revolution requires the support of the masses. Secondly, this revolutionary shift in power cannot be held at the ballot box, because the Capitalist State supports the bourgeoisie. The only candidates you can vote for and the only parties allowed anywhere near power are the ones that serve purely the interests of Capital. That’s why not only is voting reform extremely difficult to get, but also would not change the necessity of revolution.

Thirdly, on your analysis of why voting reform like RCV is not more widespread, it isn’t because it isn’t popular. RCV is a carrot on a string, too small in scale to ever impact anything, but just close enough that you have hope for it. Even insidiously, achieving RCV nationwide still won’t stop the inevitable crumbling of Capitalism! Many other nations have RCV and yet still have nothing but right-wing establishment parties in power, because RCV fundamentally doesn’t enact change, it just sounds like it could.

Fourth, you make no mention of how or why you believe Communism to be “unviable,” yet fully back a system where distribution is based on arbitrary “goodness” in society. Communists argue for practical, labor-time based economic planning that can be calculated, tracked, measured, and adjusted using real world technology, and moreso argue for doing so only in areas of industry that have already advanced to monopolist syndicates and can thus be centrally planned after being publicly owned. Where is this “goodness” you speak of calculated? By what measure?

Fifth, Humans are not inherently greedy, nor would that be a problem for Socialism and Communism in the first place. Rather, human ideas are shaped by their material conditions and their definite social relations, Capitalism highlights greed and rewards it more. The Base reinforces the Superstructure, ie the Mode of Production reinforces and projects the laws, culture, and values of society, which in turn reinforces the base, slightly changing each other over time as society develops and progresses. Humans will not appear so greedy in a publicly owned economy.

Ultimately, all of your criticisms of Communism are incredibly common for those who have not read theory, as all of the ones you raised specifically were already answered over a hundred years ago. More questions have been raised since then, of course, but I think you would gain a ton from reading the theory list I made, some highlights that directly answer your questions are:

1. Reform or Revolution

2. Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price and Profit

3. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

4. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

5. The Principles of Communism

6. The State and Revolution

And as an added measure that isn’t in my reading list, Prices in a Planned Economy for more information on what Marxists advocate for with respect to how to economically plan.

I think it’s almost amazing how you were able to touch on many different common areas that have been thoroughly answered by Marxists over the years quite definitively, and I mean no offense by that. I really do recommend you give it a try.

I appreciate your apology, it does explain quite a few of what I percieved as erratic and irrational antagonisms. I will state that had you not come in, intentionally or not, by directly assaulting my character, I would have generally been far more charitable.

I know you said you don’t wish to reply, and if not that’s fine and I understand. However, given that we have clarified that the hostility in this conversation was based on a fundamental misunderstanding in tone and intent, why not talk about our ideas, like you said you wanted? We can start fresh.

What about our difference in opinion is so fundamental that we can’t come to some level of agreement? Again, I’ll state that, regardless of the actions of individual voters, whether or not these voters are mobilized in general depends most heavily on the campaigns run by the two parties. The changes in the 2024 Harris Campaign compared to the successful Biden 2020 campaign can at least be considered a large determining factor in the changes in voting sway, no?

Secondly, I do think it’s important to analyze if voting reform would actually meaningfully change society, and if it’s even feasible to achieve without revolution in the first place. Marxists have very good reasons to be revolutionary exclusively.

My plan is a plan, revolution has clear requirements and work do be done, organizations to be built and class awareness to be raised. I don’t know what you mean by that as “guidelines.”

Secondly, “supporting your community,” while noble, is vague and shapeless. What does that look like? How do you work towards better voting systems, and how do you know they are sufficient to bring about change? Is this a situation where you just think really hard about something and hope it magically manifests, or is this a real, practical plan? These questions should all be able to be answered by you in a heartbeat, and if not, your plan does not have the same degree of validity. I encourage you to poke and prod at what I espouse. I also take what I believe to be a pragmatist’s approach - after all, I believe what you advocate thus far is far too difficult to accomplish and far too little to accomplish much even if it did come to pass.

Thirdly, you claim I am not willing to have a conversation about my views. Since when? You can check my comment history, it is filled with meaningful conversation regarding the myriad nuances, complexities, difficulties, and strengths of Marxism. When were you willing to have a discussion? You opened a conversation where I said the Democrats failed to garner support with condemnation of my personal character, and refused to acknowledge my points on the necessity of working towards a practical solution rather than hoping the Democrats can win. Evidently, that still remains your tactic, because you only said “voting reform” is necessary.

I never once painted you as a Capitalist, you’re likely a proletarian like most of us. I never once called you a fascist, either.

I do believe that if you took the advice I gave in the beginning, you’d likely agree with my reading list, and even become a Communist by the end of it. What I don’t believe is that you’re in a mindset to take that advice, nor do I believe you ever have been in this conversation. You opened it with personal attacks when I tried to direct the conversation towards practical actions, and I think that’s because taking action scares you.

I hope you’ll read theory, I do think you’d agree with it if you would be willing to do so, but I don’t think you are, yet. If, on the off-chance you do decide, I’m open to answer any questions you might have. I don’t know everything about Marxism, not by a long-shot, but I’m very confident in what I do talk about because I refrain from talking about what I don’t know.

What, exactly, is insufferable about me asking you what your plan is when you come attacking me of your own volition? It wasn’t like I reached out to you, you whined and left when you couldn’t articulate a point yet I could and did.

The election was never about Palestine, ultimately the Dems lost of their own volition by running rightward with Liz Cheney. Rather than going with a safe win like ending support for genocide and running on a progressive platform, or even a Leftist platform (which the DNC would never do, for the record, even if it would win), they deliberately chose to lose to the reps. Their donors would rather have Trump than progressive Dems win.

More Americans would die under Harris as well. The US Empire is crumbling, even if Harris won that wouldn’t stop that process, what’s necessary is for the working class to get organized.

Meanwhile, Palestine burns and the Dems got away with it.

It’s simple, the US Empire is causing this issue. They perpetually fund Israel as a genocidal settler-colony that projects power in the Middle East so the Petro-Dollar is secure. When the world trades in dollars, the US Empire profits massively.

Thank goodness the Democrats perpetuated the genocide in Gaza so they wouldn’t lose to Trump! 🤦

The Democrats can only be failed, they can’t fail, can they? If they lose, it’s the fault of the masses, each individually, and not on the Party running the campaign and trying to connect to its base, is that right?

The fact of the matter is that Trump was more successful in getting his base to vote, and Harris went against her base by running to the right of Biden in 2020, despite polling telling her it would lead to electoral loss.

None of us individually made any difference, no matter who we voted, the ones with the ability to change the course of the election are the parties and candidates running for it.

You don’t know who I voted for, and it doesn’t matter. I could have voted De La Crúz, Stein, Oliver, Harris, Trump, any of them, and it would not have made a shred of difference, and unlike you, I have planned for that already. You still haven’t told me your plan, so I guess I was right, it really is just to whine on Lemmy and blame voters for the tremendous and historic failure of the Democratic Party to connect even somewhat to the working masses and thus garner support.

In the future, when Capitalism has decayed further, you’ll likely become radicalized and seek to understand this process, and I’ll be right here.

I didn’t get Trump elected, lol. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t. The election isn’t a part of any Leftist’s plans.

The answer is revolution, as it always has been, and that starts with organizing. I’ve even made an introductory Marxist reading list that has gotten several people to read theory, and hopefully join Leftists in organizing. Yes, I did link it at the beginning of this convo, and no, you didn’t click it, otherwise you’d know what my plan is because I spell it out.

What’s your plan? Endlessly critique on Lemmy and blame voters for the failures of the DNC?

Voting Kamala failed. The Democrats failed to run a campaign that won. That is in the past. What I am saying is that voting Democrat did not work, so I am asking what their plan actually is, if voting Dem wasn’t plan A then what is?

Leftists already have a plan that isn’t contingent on winning a presidential election. Do liberals?

The Democrats are a business that sells policy to Capitalists, those Capitalists would rather the Dems lose than run left. Support for Israel is because it is a foothold for the US Empire and pressures into place the Petro-Dollar. It’s all economic.

Do you think continuing the slide into fascism as Capitalism continues to decay is a good thing? If not, how do you plan on stopping it?

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats ran to the right of Biden in 2020 and committed fully to genocide. They lost the support they had, and they lost enough to lose the popular vote as well as electoral college. This was a massive failure, and if your plan was simply to vote Dem and hope for the best, then it’s clear that your plan A failed. What’s your plan B?

The Democrats, in the eyes of liberals, can only be failed, they cannot fail of their own accord. Now, more than ever, is a good time to start reading theory, as many liberals are disaffected by the US election. I wrote an introductory reading list for Marxism in case anyone wants one.

Almost. We are proletarians working under late-stage Capitalism, where markets have largely coalesced into monopolist syndicates and cartels, and competition is rapidly dying out. The conditions are ripe for siezure, public ownership, and central planning, ie Socialism.

deleted by creator

The peasantry worked fewer hours because of the nature of production. Capitalist commodity production seeks to maximize profits, and does so by ensuring wages are regulated by cost of subsistence and replacement. Feudalism operated differently, peasants worked for themselves and produced essentially rent for their feudal lords, and thus did not have maximized working hours.

Question 8 : In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?

Answer : The serf enjoys the possession and use of an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he hands over a part of his product or performs labour. The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product. The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it. The serf frees himself either by running away to the town and there becoming a handicraftsman or by giving his landlord money instead of labour and products, thereby becoming a free tenant; or by driving his feudal lord away and himself becoming a proprietor, in short, by entering in one way or another into the owning class and into competition. The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.

-The Principles of Communism

This isn’t to say the serfs had it materially better, but that their mode of production was different. Their low level of technological development stood in the way of great progress, and we cannot return back to such a model, but instead should progress onward to Socialism now that Capitalism has largely run its course and centralized most modern industries for central planning and public ownership.

Marxism is useful for understanding this phenomena, I made an intro to Marxism reading list if any of you are interested.

Marx’s analysis of Capitalism and predictions of where it heads are proven more correct with the passage of time. The reason the Proletarian is exploited to a greater degree than the serf is due to the nature of commodity production. As the M-C-M’ circuit, whereby M is an initial sum of money, C the commodity produced with M, and M’ the greater sum of money after selling said commodity is the basis of Capitalist production, said process is incentivized to be maximized. In Feudalism, rent is extracted and the rest kept for subsistence, in Capitalism wages are set by cost of continued existence and replacement, moving up or down mostly by societal norms.

Question 8 : In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?

Answer : The serf enjoys the possession and use of an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he hands over a part of his product or performs labour. The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product. The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it. The serf frees himself either by running away to the town and there becoming a handicraftsman or by giving his landlord money instead of labour and products, thereby becoming a free tenant; or by driving his feudal lord away and himself becoming a proprietor, in short, by entering in one way or another into the owning class and into competition. The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.

-The Principles of Communism

The serfs did not have it better, of course. However, the nature of their production was limited to the low technological development of the time. With mass factories Capitalism was transitioned to, and now with complex development of production in the hands of massive, monopolist syndicates and cartels, we can move beyond Capitalism to Socialized prodiction, central planning and public ownership, far easier than ever before.

I highly recommend those interested to check out my Introductory Reading List on Marxism.

Electoralism is a dead project for leftists and has been for centuries. Trying to practice Democratic Party Entryism doesn’t work due to the party structure of the DNC as essentially a business that sells policy to wealthy Capitalists.