Cowbee

In my opinion, I did provide it. I could link The German Ideology and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and if you read them you would perhaps understand Dialectical and Historical Materialism better, but we are having a discussion on Lemmy. The capacity for sharing information and the expecations for a single thread of replies are very low.

Marx was incredibly intelligent, but he couldn't predict the future, thus, like I have linked in Critique of the Gotha Programme, the closest we can get is his insistence that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous. Asking for a quote for him saying "communism is when you eliminate private property, struggle a ton, then bring it back in a controlled manner and gradually increase public ownership" won't happen, because the initial failure isn't necessary.

Imagine trying to build a modern cell phone with bronze-age technology. You can't, just like you can't materialize Communism through fiat without developing the Means of Production. Marxism isn't Utopian, ie it isn't about picking a good society and forcing it into existence, regardless of the level of development of the Means of Production. Marxism is Scientific, ie it focuses on historical developments, the Mode of Production is tied to the technological level of the Means of Production. Feudalism disappeared after the Industrial Revolution, largely, and not earlier. Having achieved a backwards, idealist, impoverished "communism" like under Mao and the Gang of Four goes against Marx's theory of historical development of class society, and China paid the price for ignoring that.

Theory must meet practice, and practice must inform theory. The PRC tried to establish Communism without developing the Means of Production adequately, readjusted, and has now rapidly developed. Holding an ultra-Maoist line like the Gang of Four that insisted it is better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism is Revisionism. Maoist Theory regarding Class Struggle did not meet practice, therefore the correct choice was to take a gradualist approach while maintaining CPC control so that when the Means of Production are more developed, they can be more Socialized in turn as Socialism emerges from Capitalism.

You are clearly here in bad faith and this discussion is over. And I better not see this kind of trolling from you to other users.

This is insulting, especially considering you haven't attempted to respond to the rest of my comment, where I try to actually engage with modern analysis of a country Marx never lived to see and actively analyze. If clearly high-effort replies are considered "trolling" and "bad-faith" by your standards, then how can you consider your "gotchas" any better?

Yes, you can claim that. I asked you to show me where. At the very least a reference to where he says it, but you could quote him. I don't see why you think I should just trust your interpretation.

Marx hadn't lived in a time where there was a society that tried to jump to Communism immediately without developing the Means of Production first, so the closest we can get is his critique of Anarchism. Critique of the Gotha Programme also provides perspective on the transition to Communism:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

However, I encourage you to read Marx for yourself. You shouldn't "trust" my interpretation, you should dive into Marxism if you wish to critique Marxists along Marxist lines. You can critique as a non-Marxist, that's perfectly valid, but trying to critique as a Marxist without a solid understanding of Marxism isn't good-faith in my opinion.

Also, I am not making a value judgment about communism. Do not try to twist what I am saying into an argument against communism, because you are starting to look like you're here in bad faith.

I am not trying to say that you're making a value judgement. My argument is that, as a Marxist-Leninist that has read no fewer than 2 dozen books by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Parenti, Politzer, and other Marxist writers, it is evident to me that your understanding of Historical and Dialectical Materialism is lacking, and that clouds your judgement when you critique using Marxist analysis.

I did. Mao tried to jump ahead to Communism, without developing the Means of Production. This was misguided. Deng noted the failures of the Gang of Four:

During the “cultural revolution” the Gang of Four raised the absurd slogan, “Better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism.” It may sound reasonable to reject the goal of becoming rich under capitalism. But how can we advocate being poor under socialism and communism? It was that kind of thinking that brought China to a standstill. That situation forced us to re-examine the question.

The PRC had eliminated Private Property, but were poor. The people were struggling. They had not actually developed the Means of Production to the level they needed to be.

Here's a Marxist "test," if you will. If you take expert Marxists and place them in an entirely new Earth-like planet, with no tools, what would their course of history look like? Would they be able to achieve Communism through fiat, or would they have to go through similar stages of production as we did in history?

The Marxist answer is that, while they may be able to go through the process of development more quickly, with the knowledge of key technologies like agriculture and the steam engine that allowed for major leaps in Mode of Production, they would not be able to achieve Upper-Stage Communism outright, and would have to develop Modes of Production alongside technological development, just like you can't skip from wooden pickaxes to diamond pickaxes without iron pickaxes in Minecraft, if you'll forgive the analogy.

In his theory of Historical Materialism. Mao and the later Gang of Four succeeded in broadly eliminating private property, but had done so without developing the Means of Production adequately, resulting in economic stagnation. The people were poor, they had tried to leapfrog development to Communism in an idealist, Utopian manner, which was a rejection of the Historical Materialist idea that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous.

Communism requires a certain level of industrial development that the PRC did not have, and for that reason the Cultural Revolution was in many ways highly damaging.

Would you have had the PRC uphold the Gang of Four's dogmatic, anti-Marxist line simply because China had largely abolished Private Property? Is it better for the proletarist to be poor under Socialism, or rich under Capitalism?

I mean, you definitely should read Marx. China is Socialist, guided by a Communist Party. It hasn't reached Communism, and when they tried to jump to Communism under Mao and the later Gang of Four, they ran into massive issues because the Means of Production weren't developed enough.

Marx maintains that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous, dialectically. That doesn't mean China needed to let Billionaires run rampant, doing whatever they want, it means that it was the correct gamble to heavily industrialize and interlock itself with the global economy while maintaining State Supremacy over Capital, focusing more than anything on developing the productive forces.

Like it or not, the USSR largely collapsed due to trying to stay isolated from the West, which legitimately led to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They had strong safety nets and all the necessities they needed, but lacked the fun toys (to simplify a multi-faceted issue, along with increased liberalization and betrayals from Gorbachev). The PRC watched this in real time, and didn't want to repeat it.

In that manner, the PRC is Socialist. It maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over Capital, Billionaires fear persecution, state ownership is high and growing, the Proletariat's real purchasing power is growing. The bourgeoisie exists, but has been kept no larger than can be drowned in a bathtub, in terms of power relation to the CPC, so to speak.

There is risk of Capitalist roading, and the bourgeoisie wresting control from the CPC. This risk is real, and is dangerous, but it hasn't happened yet. Wealth disparity is rising, so we must keep a careful eye on it.

The greatest analytical tool of a Marxist is Dialectical Materialism. When analyzing something, it isn't sufficient to take a present-day snapshot, you must consider its history, its relations to other entities, its contradictions, and its trajectory. Engels was a Capitalist, was Marx hypocritical for keeping Engels as his closest friend and ally? No. Class reductionism is dogmatic, we must analyze correctly.

A bit nitpicky here, but personal property isn't Private Property. That being said, Marx and Engels maintained constantly that Private Property cannot be abolished in one sweep, that goes fundamentally against Historical Materialism. Socialism emerges from Capitalism, you can't establish it through fiat, hence why the Cultural Revolution wasn't a resounding success. Mao tried to establish Communism immediately, misjudged, and then Deng stepped in.

Where are the "real" Communists? What draws the line between a Marxist and a tankie?

Harris will never change her mind on Israel

It's a minor effect, equivalent to signal boosting a good message. My single vote isn't going to do jack shit in the grand scheme of things, organizing will.

Not once have I said voting will do any real good.

There's no such thing as having no orientation. Being honest about it is better than false neutrality.

Yep, that's why I'm voting for Claudia De La Crúz. She's none of those, Kamala is most of those.