Cowbee

Blaming individuals produced by the system and not the system itself is strange. That's like saying the IDF isn't the problem, the soldiers are.

What do you disagree with here? The idea that markets trend towards monopolist syndicates, naturally centralizing production? Or the idea that the Proletariat should sieze these syndicates and plan production democratically and centrally?

The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.

This is patently false, the PRC holds that record and it was due to Socialism, not Capitalism.

Socialism is the successful successor to Capitalism. Socialism isn't an idea you implement, but a consequence of markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that make themselves ripe for public ownership and planning.

Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?

There are many. The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc. Have all drastically improved on previous conditions, achieving large increases in life expectancy, democratization, literacy rates, access to healthcare, housing, education, and more. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.

This is false. What are you specifically tracking? Freedom for the bourgeoisie?

I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it's the least bad of the terrible options.

The phrase is typically used to describe democracy, not Capitalism.

As an aside, I'm arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn't an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.

It doesn't matter what you support, the Superstructure, ie laws and safeguards, comes primarily from the Base, ie the Mode of Production.

Markets move themselves regardless of people's will towards centralized syndicates, monopolies over production. These make themselves ripe for siezure and central planning, markets themselves prepare the proletariat for running a socialized economy as they coalesce over time. This is why Marx says the bourgeoisie produces "above all else, its own gravediggers." There is no maintaining Capitalism, it eliminates itself over time.

I'm sorry, but I entirely disagree. Dialectical and Historical Materialism are incredibly far-removed from standard American discourse and takes quite a bit to understand, oversimplifying it is dangerous. If all it took to be a Marxist-Leninist was critical thought and self-awareness, the US would have had a proletarian revolution already.

Sure. The de-industrialization of America has been devastating for class awareness.

It's more because it's a bunch of random assertions, falsehoods, misunderstandings, half-truths, and more with no substance to tackle and respond to without starting a lengthy struggle session.

The USSR absolutely was guided by Communist ideology, and was Socialist, that's true. It's also true that it wasn't perfect. A good article to read is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" because many people don't understand Marxism and interpret it through an idealist, anti-Marxist lens. The article is pro-Marxist-Leninist, and anti-ultraleftist, and attempts to highlight the impossibilities of establishing an idealized form of Socialism through fiat, without strong development of the productive forces and centralization.

Israel right now

Many don't even do it intentionally, they just don't grasp concepts like Historical and Dialectical Materialism, which requires reading lengthy books to fully grasp. They may be anti-Capitalist at heart, but without a solid understanding of theory they play into bourgeois hands.

There's also the fact that the ideas held by society are a reflection of the Mode of Production.

I have and blocked nearly all of it. They have fuck-all to do with Marxism or Communism and mainly focus on Kremlin and CCP anti-west propaganda.

Can you explain what you mean by that? On what grounds do you claim they have "fuck all to do with Marxism or Communism?" How familiar are you with Marxist theory?

It's worse than the "conservative" communities, actually. It's not so much about promoting a cause as it is about telling everyone else how they are "bad". Any dissent is usually met with insults or walls of cut-n-paste posts that all point back to state media sources or fake sites.

I'd love examples, because this is blatantly false in my experience.

While all places have their own degrees of circle-jerk mentality, it can be especially bad in some corners of Lemmy.

Lemmy.world tends to be pretty bad, I agree 😜

1. After the revolution, how to you prevent the people that were influential during the revolution from seizing power for themselves, becoming the new bourgeoisie. This happened time and time again in practice.

This hasn't happened "time and time again in practice." What do you mean by a "new bourgeoisie?" How familiar are you with Marxism? You may want to read the book Blackshirts and Reds for clarifying and contextualizing the myriad successes and failures of AES states historically.

2. Even in the best case scenario, the decisions on what to produce become centralized in the hands of politicians. Political systems that we tried so far don't work that well in practice. Is this really the best solution?

Again, please elaborate. Centralization is a natural consequence of market-based systems over time, therefore Marxists see central planning of public property to be the next phase in Mode of Production. Marxism isn't about trying to force a new society, but moving along the natural progression in Mode of Production.

AES states have not been perfect, but they have dramatically improved on previous systems. I think a good intro to the process of historical development would be reading the short essay Why do Marxists fail to bring about the "Worker's Paradise?" You seem to believe Socialism to be something that can be implemented by decree, by fiat, rather than something that forms over time. The laws of a system depend on the Mode of Production, the capacity for democratization increases alongside centralization and increases in the productive forces. This process is why Marx says the bourgeoisie produces "more than anything, its own gravediggers."

I'd recommend reading the second link before the first, the second article gets to the heart of your issues and takes around 20 minutes, the first link is a full book and is generally a good read, not as immediately relevant.