He/They. Marxist-Leninist, Butcher, DnD 3.5e enthusiast and member of PSL NEO and UFCW local 880. ASAB (All Scolds Are Bastards). Plague rat settler. I administrate a DnD 3.5e West Marches server for Socialists called the Axe and Sickle. https://discord.gg/R5dPsZU

  • 14 Posts
  • 979 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: March 24th, 2022
  • Drewfro66toSocialism@lemmy.ml•hello againEnglish
    3·
    1 day ago

    I definitely agree with this - the point of Marxism is that your exact policies should depend on your material conditions. The Bolshevik Party is a good example of this. At some points, they advanced workplace democracy; at others, they returned Bourgeois managers to the factories. At times they supported individually owned farms, and at others forcibly collectivized ones, and at still others allowed for privately owned plantations. Lenin called for the party to participate in Bourgeois elections, but the vast majority of Bolsheviks took the ultra-left position and boycotted them. Sometimes decentralization is preferable - but centralization is often necessary! These are all dialectics that cannot be resolved dogmatically.

  • Drewfro66toSocialism@lemmy.ml•hello againEnglish
    51·
    1 day ago

    To explain my positions:

    While sometimes reform can make advancements, the important part is that a Marxist must advocate for Revolution. Participation in Bourgeois elections is necessary to build a mass movement, but Marxists should never give them the legitimacy of claiming that their power will come from winning those elections.

    Utopian Socialism is infantile. Socialism must be based in scientific, Marxist principles or you are at best a progressive Liberal. When your ideology is based in utopian ideals instead of scientific processes, you will make yourself unable to take the necessary steps to shepherd a Socialist society when it sometimes requires concessions.

    Centralism is necessary, at least in the developing stage of Socialism, in order to combat reaction and quickly advance productive forces. Similarly to the Utopian vs. Scientific debate, perhaps decentralized authority would be preferable in a perfect world, and may be pursued in the latter stateless stages of Communism, but spells death and inefficiency in the short term. The failure of the Spanish Republicans to effectively ensure their mutual defense is the chief historical example

    I don’t believe that Nationalism or Patriotism are inherently un-Marxist concepts, and can be encouraged among the masses to increase loyalty to the Socialist state. But Communists, especially those within the imperial core, must always remember that Imperialist oppression inevitably turns inward - and that when you preserve those Imperialistic policies under a Socialist state, you are preserving systems of oppression that will eventually demand expansion back into the motherland. In other words: flags and military parades are fine, but you must also support your international brethren, at least within the imperial core.

    Under Socialism there should be a dialectic struggle between trade unions and the Party. Trade Unions, being non-ideological entities, will inevitably become a reactionary force under a Socialist government. In the stage of international struggle, the needs of the party must come first. But after, they must settle into a dialectic struggle - the Party ensuring the health of society as a whole with the Unions ensuring the rights and happiness of the workers.

    I do not believe in silly notions about the value of the natural world beyond what is supported by scientific principles. So long as we have parks for the people to enjoy, the climate is stabilized, and the trees are producing enough oxygen for our breath and industry, the natural world has no inherent utility. Believing that the natural world is more important than building the productive forces necessary for the victory of Socialism and the happiness of the people is Eco-Fascism, even if those who believe in it paint themselves with an Anarchist or Socialist veneer.

    I won’t spend too long on this point. Social progress is good and I do not need to explain why. But, especially in the early stages, Socialists must not turn too hard against traditional ways of life that practiced by the majority of people or cultural minorities. Crush the power of religious institutions, but do not demolish the churches. Encourage secular cohabitation, but do not outlaw marriage. Create public cafeterias to end kitchen slavery, but do not ban the sale of cookbooks.

  • Drewfro66toChapotraphouse@hexbear.net•If you are an American join the PSLEnglish
    14·
    3 days ago

    I would recommend joining the PSL Action Network, basically you pay $5 a month to help sustain the party and you get a bunch of stickers and pamphlets in the mail. And they’ll also let you know if they’re doing anything in your area.

    You can also join as an at-large member and when the party gets another person in your area they’ll put you in contact.

  • Drewfro66toMemes•Me when Anarchists:English
    11·
    9 days ago

    During the Russian Revolution, when the Mensheviks and Trudoviks and SRs and even revisionists within the Bolsheviks turned against the revolution, Anarchists stood with us, at least until Krondstadt. Anarchists are not all bad and I’ve met many intelligent, mature Anarchists locally.

    Anarchism is not necessarily a stupider ideology than most others, it’s just an easy entry point due to its focus on Individualism - Anarchists can be very good, but stupid people are more likely to identify as Anarchists than anything else on the left.

Moderates