At what point do you think Marxists believe the DotP is to be ended? Moreover, what do you think a DotP is? People weren’t allowed to dissolve government into small communes because they were invaded by more than 14 Capitalist countries, and in addition the Soviets were Marxists and not Anarchists, they wanted full public ownership and central planning as the goal.

No problem!

Fair 🥲

I 100% agree with your last paragraph in particular, Luigi is a natural consequence more than anything else. I am not condemning his actions either, just refusing to lionize him as that places himself and thus his reactionary views and adventurism over the real and practical unity going on right now.

As for a lack of appreciation for AES, I try to devote a good chunk of time to combatting myths and contextualizing them because it’s such an important fight for showing that we can do better.

Then you run into the reality that Luigi didn’t actually change anything either, it was just a cool and unifying moment and will likely get swept under the rug with some minor concessions if we don’t take advantage of this unity and push for organization. Assassination has never transfered power from one class to another, revolution has, and revolution requires organization.

I personally believe Marxist analysis still holds up under scrutiny despite the lack of a western revolution, moreover the fact that the proletariat is celebrating across party lines lends credibility to the idea of increasing radicalization among the proletariat as conditions worsen.

The USSR had low wealth inequality by design, and was more publicly owned and centrally planned. This led to numerous benefits, but also drawbacks such as brain drain.

The PRC took the opposite approach. They allow billionaires to remain in the PRC, investing and developing Capital there and not elsewhere. They maintain a balancing act between capitilation and domination so there isn’t the same Capital flight and brain drain, because you can still go to China to get extraordinarily rich.

The Chinese path presents a difficult contradiction towards their Socialist goals, but their method of “boiling the frog” has set it on course to continue surpassing the US while remaining entangled in the global economy, rather than isolated like the USSR was.

Rather than pulling a groundless act of superiority, can you actually address what I’ve said? Which part are you skeptical of? Rather than watching the news alone, you should read theory and history.

I haven’t seen any Marxist trying to claim the CEO was “working class” or that he was merely responding to stakeholders, moreover the idea that Marxists have never achieved change ignores the existence of the USSR, Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, and so forth. Additionally, we should not lionize a radlib with socially reactionary “anti-DEI” views, support for the feds, etc.

Adventurism can be fun to watch, it was cool that an awful person got domed and everyone is celebrating. This is a signifier of radicalization and readiness for actual organization and change, right wing pundits like Shapiro misjudged their mostly proletarian audience and assumed they would condemn the violnece as well, and this is actually unifying the proletariat as a whole.

At the same time, adventurism is adventurism, not change. When the SRs in pre-1917 Russia celebrated “an end to theory” as a unifying principle and claimed “assassinations transfer power,” they were wrong. Assassinations create temporary voids taken by those closest to the spot, always another bourgeois and never a transfer. What is required is organized effort to rise above the Bourgeoisie as a class so that Capital is controlled by humanity, and not the inverse. It was the dedication to theory and organizing the working class that proved the Bolsheviks, and not the SRs, correct.

Theory remains critical, because it is the only way to turn revolutionary energy into revolutionary outcomes. For anyone wanting to start that journey, I have an introductory Marxist reading list.

I mean revolution and instating worker supremacy, as has happened in AES states like the PRC, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc.

As per China, I specifically stated that they learned from the USSR and are doing the opposite of what contributed to its downfall. The USSR had very low wealth inequality, and suffered from brain drain where skilled individuals could be paid more in the US. The PRC is not yet developed enough to avoid that same fate if they cracked down even harder on their wealthier individuals, it’s a gamble that has so far proved correct.

Yes, the shareholders therefore need to be subject to Proletarian supremacy. Revolution is required to advance.

As for China, part of the reason why it works is because Capitalists can’t just up and take their factories, the government can sieze them, plus the size of the market and allowance for the existance of wealthy individuals stems brain drain, which proved to assist in the USSR’s downfall.

You could post it to US News, or the Socialism/Communism communities.

Direct action requires organizing. The Bolsheviks combined legal with illegal work, and this was the key to successful revolution. Adventurism, like the Socialist Revolutionaries tried to use, never made a real difference in the end, while organizing did.

It is much easier to do so through labor organizing and millitancy than spreading random terror. We can laugh and jest about a brutal CEO getting his just desserts, but we must move beyond simple adventurism. The fact that everyone appears united on this topic is only further evidence that revolution is a real and popular option.

You’re suggesting you de-develop companies and make them less efficient, rather than folding them into the public sector and further improving their efficiency. Once markets have done their job and left centralized, internally planned structures, the answer isn’t to break them up and repeat the process of misery and squalor, but to further develop by folding it into the public sector. It’s like you want to regularly pick up a race car and put it backwards on the track every time it gets close to crossing the finish line.

Competition naturally trends towards monopoly, there is no benefit to perpetually trying to move the clock back. Moreover, even with such laws, your country is still getting more centralized over time, only without worker control.

You need to seriously reconsider why you believe markets to be better than central planning at all stages in development.

You specifically said that him resigning was something you wanted him to do. He tried 4 times. Would you have had him abandon his post? Absurd. You can’t have your cake and eat it too here, either resigning doesn’t actually matter to you or you would have rather had him put people in danger by abandoning his post and going AWOL.

Secondly, he tried to have his position eliminated. He was of the belief that it was superfluous, and that too was rejected. When his resignation was rejected several times, he countered with the idea of eliminating his position altogether, citing previous times where no such position was in place. This, too, was rejected. Read the transcript of December 19, 1927, where Stalin makes the case of its redundancy as opportunism and opposition had already been weeded out in his eyes, and specifically states that his power can be spread to those under him and nothing would fundamentally change other than a removal of what he calls “distortions.”

We have archival evidence that what you proposed he could have done, but didn’t, was actually tried by him and rejected. He wasn’t a dictator with absolute control, but an elected official. He was no saint, but the idea that he didn’t hate his position flies in the face of him outright telling everyone that he lacked the strength to continue and would rather live out the rest of his days in a quiet part of the country doing menial party work. Either you reject the archival evidence, or you reframe your thinking.

Politicians don’t control the sharks, it’s the inverse. They are incapable of changing the system.

He tried to resign no fewer than 4 times, and what “issues” are you talking about? How could he have “reformed the system” in your eyes to be better?

Yes, how do you avoid that trending towards a monopoly? Competition forces centralization over time, and even extension into hyper-exploiting the Global South. Further, you absolutely have people dying out of being impoverished.

We don’t, actually. Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Stalin was not a perfect and untainted figure. The point is that Socialism does not mechanically support corruption in the same way Capitalism does out of necessity, and you seem to be ignoring that at every turn.

When you say an “extreme Capitalism,” what does that mean? That already happens. Moreover, what haooens when all of the companies centralize?