• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Marxist-Leninism is an entirely made-up ideology by the Stalinist USSR that to this day has no clear definition due to its constantly changing definition that fits whatever the ruling party’s agenda is at the time

    Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Marxism with Lenin’s revolutionary advancements on Marxism, chiefly his analysis of imperialism and organizational theory. It’s very well-understood.

    Ex: “communism with Chinese characteristics” completely dismissing China’s abandonment of proletariat rule, abandonment of giving the means of production to the proletariat, and embracing the system of capital.

    It’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and it’s still dominated by the proletariat. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy, and capitalists are held on a tight leash to focus on developing the productive forces. The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned, it’s only the small and medium firms that are private.

    Again, no need to waste time on tankie cope posting. Especially as the sources you provide are all just that.

    More rhetorical gibberish from yourself, you pull the “tankie” thought termination card to excuse yourself from engaging in discussion.

    You want an accurate picture of what communism should be? How about instead of reading g revisionism, you read the works of Marx.

    I have. Are you trying to make this a reading competiton? Not that this would prove anything, but I’ve read at least the following from Marx alone:

    1. Manifesto of the Communist Party
    2. Third Economic Manuscript of 1844
    3. Critique of the Gotha Programme
    4. Theses on Feurbach
    5. Wage Labor and Capital
    6. Value, Price, and Profit
    7. Marx to Ruge
    8. Capital: Volume 1
    9. Capital: Volume 2
    10. Critique of Hegel’s Dialectic and General Philosophy

    Not to mention various small other bits here and there, or the works of Engels, Lenin, and other Marxists I’ve read. Your argument that I haven’t done the reading doesn’t work, I’ve clearly done so, which is why your thought-terminating argument doesn’t work.

    Fun fact: he loved democracy. Wanna know why? He saw it as the most stable path to socialism.

    Marx was a revolutionary, and supported socialist democracy. From Marx:

    The revolution is essential not merely because the dominant class cannot be overthrown by any other means, but also because only in the course of the revolution can the class which overthrows cleanse itself of the mire of the old society and become fit to create a new society.

    Revolution is necessary to fully transform society into a socialist one.

    You know who doesn’t love democracy? Fascists and tankies… who are just red fascists.

    More gibberish. Marxist-Leninists love democracy for the working classes, you should read Soviet Democracy and This Soviet World. From the latter:

    The basic unit for government is the working institution, the factory or office; in rural districts it is the village. Deputies are chosen to the local government, the village or city soviet.[25] The basis of representation and size of the local soviet depends on the size of the community: Gulin village, whose election I visited, has one deputy for every forty voters and a village soviet of thirteen members. Moscow city elects one deputy for fifteen hundred voters and has more than two thousand members in its city soviet. These local deputies meet soon after election to form the new government. They divide among themselves the various departments, which range from the five sections of Gulin village—farming, livestock, culture, roads and finance—to twenty-eight sections, each with over forty deputies, through which Moscow city does business. Besides the more commonly known functions, these local governments own and manage local industry, which in a large city like Moscow includes many municipally owned factories, the street-cars, subway, lights, water, and housing. They receive revenue from public properties, but their budgets may also be augmented by taxes and state loans. Some cities actually bring in revenue—it will be remembered that they get all the house rents; others need help from the higher governments.

    On these local governments is built up the whole structure of central government.[26] Local soviets elect deputies to a congress of soviets; the township congress elects to the province, and so on up to the All-Union Congress of Soviets, the highest body in the country. Each of these congresses elects its executive committee and the heads of its various departments; for the highest government these are the great Commissariats of heavy and light industry, finance, health, and so forth. Local departments are both horizontally and vertically controlled, by local governments and by the corresponding department in the higher government. Thus a township health department is responsible both to the township executive committee and to the provincial health department. If orders clash, if a local soviet takes the hospital for some other use, its health department appeals to the provincial health department which brings pressure on the local soviet through the provincial government in the interests of public health.

    The greater part of this intricate yet unified system of government is carried on by unpaid work. Elected deputies, whether to village or the All-Union Congress, receive no salaries of office. They draw their usual wages from the factory or institution which sends them and in which they keep on working, except insofar as they may be “released from production” for the needs of government; this varies with the importance of the work they do. There is thus no hard and fast line between the citizen and the man in office. Deputies are a link between the collective life of the factory and the larger collective life of the country. Any worker may approach them conveniently any day in their place of work to ask about the fulfillment of instructions given by the voters. They may be recalled by their constituents at any time simply through a factory meeting.

    If voters thus constantly call on their deputies, the deputies are equally entitled to call on the voters for help in carrying out the election program they have voted. A deputy is no substitute for the people, no ruler; he is the representative who organizes them in their own tasks of voluntary government work. Millions of citizens take active part in the sections of the government—housing commissions, school commissions, taxing commissions, labor inspection and so on. Those who develop a taste for running public affairs will be chosen at some election for more continuous and responsible work. Those who specialize in some field, such as health, courts, housing, may be sent on pay for some months or years of study and become full-time civil servants in these departments.

    The growth of democracy in the Soviet Union thus depends directly on the extent to which citizens can be interested in taking part in operations of government. This interest is in part assured by the fact that government is so clearly the direct organizing of all aspects of the citizen’s life. In a million matters the citizens give direct instructions during the election. They order the increase of school-houses or sound films, the improvement in the quality of bread, the increase of retail stores, the transport of goods in big cities by night; they demand the breaking-up of housing trusts into smaller co-operatives, or the introduction of a less specialized education in the schools. All of these were part of some 48,000 instructions issued directly by Moscow voters to their city government, which reported within three months on the fulfillment of many hundred demands and on the disposition made of all. When instructions clash, as when some citizens want an odorous industrial plant removed from their neighborhood while others want it to stay, commissions are formed which try to satisfy not merely the majority, but as nearly as possible everybody, not through a showing of hands in opposition, but through various adjustments to the suggestions made by all. Capitalist ownership of private property limits the citizen’s participation, in government to an approval or rejection—expressed in conflict—of general policies. Socialist ownership causes government policies to grow directly and naturally from the correlated demands of millions of people, all of whom are interested in improving the country’s wealth.

    You have no points, only posturing and rhetoric.