Cowbee

Cowbee , 1 hour ago

For real, especially trying to get across Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism, or the necessity of Revolution, both of which are far touchier subjects than “Marx good” on the Fediverse.

Marx has been blunted and made tame and by those who haven’t read him.

Cowbee , 16 minutes ago

Excellent thread. Even suggesting Lenin has good ideas can get you immediate ire, because what he wrote is accurate and practicible.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Read Marx, everyone, especially people that don’t think they need to.

Cowbee , 14 hours ago

23 pages? What are you referring to? Either way, what Marx analyzed is still relevant, even in his day overproduction led to crisis. Lenin took his analysis further once Monopoly Capitalism became the standard, but the same principles apply.

Cowbee , 12 hours ago

The point of the meme is that as Capitalism deteriorates, and it must deteriorate, more Workers become aligned with Leftists and at some point there will be a shift from quantitative to qualitative, ie at some level there will be a dramatic change, like the boiling point of water.

Cowbee , 11 hours ago (edited 11 hours ago)

The Communist Manifesto isn’t what I’m talking about. The CM is a worker pamphlet, not an explanation of Marxism. The Principles of Communism is a much better introductory work, and for Marx himself, Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value, Price and Profit are excellent texts describing Capitalism. I would also add Socialism: Utopian and Scientific for an introduction to Historical Materialism, and the failures of Utopian Socialists like the Owenites.

Lenin is absolutely worth reading, he was the leader of the first genuine Marxist state, and his contributions to Marxist theory are critical. Specifically, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism furthers Marx’s analysis into the modern era of Monopoly Capitalism, aka Imperialism, which Marx was only alive to see the very beginnings of before he passed away.

Cowbee , 7 hours ago

This meme isn’t saying Socialism will not prevail. Rather, it’s saying that even though Socialists can’t individually beat Capitalism right now, as Capitalism decays Socialists increase in number and Capitalists weaken in strength, making Socialist victory more probable over time.

Cowbee , 12 hours ago

Read Marx, especially if you don’t think you need to.

Cowbee , 12 hours ago

Syndicalism is nice, but without a solid analysis of Imperialism it risks taking on a Nationalist character if you’re in the Imperial Core. Additionally, if you’re in a de-industrialized nation like the United States, worker organization is more difficult along union lines, which is partially why Unions have historically struggled in the United States in recent years.

100% agree on reading theory and joining an org, just wanted to add some caveats.

Cowbee , 12 hours ago

Don’t unions really restrict your salary growth in fields where there’s actual potential for it?

Nope.

I’m in software engineering and I reckon a whole bunch of people would be unhappy if their salary was in a direct relationship with their years of experience.

Why would increasing your bargaining power lower your wages?

Cowbee , 12 hours ago

Those commenters have no idea what they are talking about. You are always stronger aligned with your fellow workers.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Capital, famously read by MAGA.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

We are in the mess that we are because less than 50% people vote in the first place.

If 100% of people voted and the Dems won again, they would still be committing genocide. Not sure what your point is here.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

maybe we could get candidates that actually represent us and our interests.

Where? You’d still see liberals crying about leftists voting third party.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Why do you believe it’s different in America?

Cowbee , 1 day ago

The Red Scare wasn’t really mass-brainwashing, though. Ultimately, the Red Scare was popularly accepted because in the aftermath of WWII, the US was the rising Imperialist power, and was a thriving Social Democracy profiting off of the aftermath of war. The material conditions of the US supported the ideas held within, if that makes sense.

The Red Scare is weakening among younger generations because Capitalism is decaying. There is a revival of the Red Scare with respect to China, which is a demonstrably rising power in the East, but the Material Conditions of the US speak for itself.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

I agree with your point about the material conditions in post war US and how they helped propagate the idea of American exceptionalism but the Red Scare was actually mass brainwashing/propaganda. This is a good look at the media of the time: Anti-communist politics of the red scare

coldwar.unc.edu/theme/the-red-scare/

…jstor.org/how-hollywood-thrived-through-the-red-…

I’m aware of what was pushed and why, but those ideas would not have taken hold had the Material Conditions not supported them. “Brainwashing” is a vibes-based answer, the truth is that the base and superstructure support each other.

While there was a true threat in terms of espionage, it was overblown by McCarthy for political gain. The US hegemony was being threatened by a rising communist bloc. The capitalists had seen the impact of progressive policies such as the New Deal and were scared of losing their influence. The establishment of the PRC in 1949 stoked the fears further. It go so bad that the Communist Control Act was passed in 1954. It prohibited members of the Communist party, who were otherwise American citizens, from holding office in labour unions. McCarthy had used anticommunist propaganda as a partisan tool and it is still being used by the right. What’s interesting to me though, is that American right-wing media had managed to push the Overton window so far to the right that they decry the policies of the Democratic Party as being communist.

I’m aware of hoe it happend and what it entailed. However, I maintain that it is due to the unique material conditions of America as the world’s largest Empire in the context of a competing Communist superpower. The material conditions pushed the ideas, not the other way around.

I’m a Communist, I am performing Marxist material analysis on it.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Of course it was because of the material conditions at the time and because the capitalist class felt threatened by the rise of communism and felt a need to combat it. It was still propaganda though and it has irreparably damaged the American psyche.

Again, I encourage you to reject the “brainwashing” narrative. The conditions came before the ideas.

Btw, the material conditions at the time were not all hunk-dory either. There was massive wealth disparity between “white” Americans and African -Americans. Minorities were still fighting widespread discrimination which prevented them the enjoy the same freedoms and prosperity as the rest of America.

Absolutely correct, material conditions don’t mean equal prosperity. How familiar are you with Historical Materialism?

Cowbee , 1 day ago

It absolutely was propaganda because the capitalist class perpetuated the lie that progressive policies would hurt the country. Neoliberals, through the use of rhetoric in the media, helped popularize the idea of the infallible free market – that was propaganda.

It was propaganda, yes. It did not “brainwash” the masses, if the material conditions weren’t fit it wouldn’t have done anything.

Nation states don’t have to staunchly be strictly capitalist or communist; social democracies do work, with the caveat that citizens have to be well-informed and act as stewards to protect and exercise their electoral rights in shaping a nation.

Social Democracy doesn’t work, the Nordics are seeing erosion of worker power and safety nets, and they depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets.

I’m well aware of Historical Materialism. My contention to your larger point, in short, was that the way forward has to be meticulous and measured. Accelerating the downfall of the system in place will have a real, disastrous impact on the lives of the existing working class. We cannot destroy lives on the promise that it will get better. Class consciousness is step 1, but we’re not even there yet.

It will not get better without Revolution.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

The question of Reform vs Revolution is already answered, Marxists believe Revolution is the only way to bring about Socialism, which is correct.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

You cannot realistically do that when half the working class thinks that that are the beneficiaries of capitalism.

I mean, they are. The US Proletariat is among the Labor Aristocracy, they benefit from Imperialism dramatically. The fall of Imperialism will drive the US Proletariat to revolution.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Base and Superstructure.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Assuming the bottom is Singapore, it’s not like Socialist Countries are known for high rates of homeless people, the public housing programs are well-known and documented. It would be a better meme if it was an AES country shown, of course, but public housing is the solution AES countries have gone with to massive effect, meaning the meme is still correct in message even if it’s an error in delivery.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Oh god oh fuck

Cowbee , 1 day ago (edited 1 day ago)

Legitimately had someone compare defacing a Trump sign to firebombing an Elementary School, saying “we are better than them” lmao

Cowbee , 1 day ago

They were also Marxist-Leninists and supportive of AES.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Marxism is Communism, yes. Communism has been proven to work multiple times, and does to this day.

I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds if that goes against what you believe to be true, though if you have specific questions I can do my best to answer.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Historically there have been more, such as the USSR, but currently the DPRK, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are explicitly Marxist. There’s a lot of misinformation surrounding them, but they retain Marxism.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

I wouldn’t say there are any “orthodox” Marxist countries, most have taken some fair bit of revisionism, but are still Socialist and practice Marxism.

Cowbee , 1 day ago (edited 1 day ago)

If we are strictly speaking ideological purity, the DPRK’s Marxism-Leninism with Juche influences is probably the least revisionist overall. China is the most “relevant,” of course, plus SWCC is legitimately a return to Marxism as compared to Maoism.

Cuba has some Capitalist roading, yes, it heavily depends on the tourist industry and said industry is decently privitized.

Ultimately though, a strong understanding of Dialectics and the Base and Superstructure is necessary when judging the impact of “Capitalist Roading.”

Cowbee , 3 hours ago

Depends on the audience. It’s polarizing, hence the downvotes as well.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

And Mendelian genetics wrecks the party with the unhinged liberalism of accurate science supported by half of Pavlov’s students?

In the beginning of the USSR, there was legitimate struggle against bourgeois science, like race science. Genetics was unfortunately overly combatted in the crossfire. The USSR was still far more dedicated to scientific pursuit than Capitalist Countries, and managed to get a man to space before even the US.

As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.

Then just read Blackshirts and Reds. If your time is so short that you can’t read even 1 short book on the topic of dispelling myths about the USSR, then your time is too short to argue with people online about it too, no offense. Blackshirts and Reds is recommended reading for new Marxists in general because it’s short and to the point, and written in common American language without requiring having read books and books of Marxist theory to understand.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

You added good context to what I’m saying, good comment comrade.

Democratic Centralism can be hard to swallow if analyzed through an Anarchist lense, but ultimately the results and necessity of the matter speak for itself. Diversity in thought, unity in action.

Trotskyism is especially dangerous because it’s essentially wrecker Marxism. Trotsky is often shown in a sympathetic light in western media and narratives, and prevents actual radicalization. New Leftists see a supposed Socialist with similar critiques of the USSR as the US State Department, and that’s a far more comfortable pill to swallow in the west.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Great!

Cowbee , 1 day ago

The error there is that it assumes Democrats are entitled to Leftist votes, despite not representing Leftists in any conceivable manner. It’s why we see Muslim-Americans flocking to Jill Stein, for the majority of Muslim-Americans genocide against Palestinians is a hard no entirely.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

This is it right here, the Dems (and even the Reps!) sometimes allow RCV at small scale to make it look like there’s even a chance of it at large scale, but materially will never allow it to happen.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

This is wrong. The parties don’t see the views of the people that vote for them, just that they recieved more or fewer votes. If Leftists vote Dem 100% of the time, then the Dems will never move any more to the Left, because they already have their vote.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes.

Are you suggesting genuine revolutionary pressure, or suggesting that public opinion meaningfully sways the parties?

The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us.

Correct.

Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation.

Not sure what this means, are you suggesting working outside the electoral system, or within it?

The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party.

Where does this political Capital come from? How do you grow it if not working with Third Parties to begin with?

More importantly, if we side with the Dems, why does that increase the political capital of leftists? The GOP will not go away, even if the party itself crumbles, what will replace it will be another far-right party, because the material conditions for that remain as long as we continue to exist in decaying Capitalism.

Owen was apolitical, I am not.

Not sure what this means.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself? Marxist, Anarchist, Liberal, etc.?

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Nothing I said implies Democrats are entitled to any votes, just basic statements about options and their outcomes.

So then you don’t have any problems with Leftists voting for Claudia De La Crúz, rather than the Dems.

Because of the terrible voting system, all those voting for Jill Stein will not affect the outcome. Voting 3rd party is barely better than not voting at all. If they would have otherwise preferred the Democrats, this helps Trump.

So you do believe the Dems are entitled to Leftist votes for being ever-so-slightly less far-right. Leftists hate the dems and the reps, but now you are saying they help Trump by voting for their interests.

I also don’t think voting 3rd party will make Democrats adopt more leftist policies, as that risks losing centrist voters and their big business sponsors they rely on.

If the Dems lose votes to Leftists, and they wish to regain those votes, they have to move leftward. They won’t ever be Socialist, correct, but they move to where they lose votes.

It’s a shame, but the best vote is one for Harris. Even when it comes to the Palestinian Genocide. If you want more 3rd party options, try to win a local election first and build momentum from there, don’t start with nothing 6 months before and try to win the federal election from there.

No, voting for genocide is not the best for Palestinian Genocide, unless you support the Genocide.

Additionally, the idea that a third party can simply “work their way up” from local elections is absurd. That’s not how the electoral system is oriented in America, any third party that poses a genuine threat to the system would be fiercely combatted by both parties, like how both Republicans and Democrats are collaborating to kick PSL off the ballot in Georgia.

The only path forward is Revolution.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Correct. You seem to know all about the voting system, I don’t need to explain to you why that is.

You do. You said Dems are not entitled Leftist votes, but then said Leftists are helping Trump by voting for Cruz. By your logic, Libertarians and Non-Voters are also helping Trump. It’s nonsense.

They will move in the direction they think they can get more votes. The past has shown that even when they lose, they prefer to move “center” rather than left.

Depends on where they lost their votes from.

Please explain how voting for your alternative 3rd party candidate, sitting at 0.3% at the polls if I’m not mistaken, will help.

Because refusing to support the genocidal system is a good thing. Kamala and Trump are united on Gaza, voting for either will only result in more death and destruction.

Voting 3rd party is not and will not lead to revolution.

Revolution will come regardless. An increase in votes for Socialist candidates shows the public the strength Socialists are building and presents an alternative.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Whomever they think is the bigger evil, they help by not voting for the lesser evil. For why, see my first comment.

The Democrats and Republicans are both 99% Hitler, ergo voting for either is voting for the greater evil.

Disagree

If the Democrats lose left wing voters by pushing rightward and lose, are they going to go even further right?

And voting for neither will also result in more death and destruction. You are refusing to explain how your choice would help, and I can make some damning assumptions why.

I am not refusing. By rejecting both genocidal parties, and showing support for anti-genocide parties, the Democrats may shift leftward to regain lost votes. Unconditionally supporting the Democrats only furthers their genocidal tendencies.

Additionally, increasing support for Third Parties shows voters an alternative to genocide.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

If you are a woman, POC or queer, it is usually really easy to choose a lesser evil here (or idk, a neo-nazi, as I framed this as why a non-voter might also help the democrats). Most people can choose a lesser evil, and they help the greater one by not voting/voting 3rd party. If you literally can’t see a difference, that’s fine, but this is the reason why most people are better of not voting 3rd party right now.

I’m queer, so is my partner. I’m also a Communist. Trump hates me openly, sure, and Kamala does nothing to stop it.

Yup, they can make that decision. Maybe they think appealing to the block of Republicans is easier, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they do considering that’s where their money is and how much they need to change to appeal to the left.

Then we know American electoralism doesn’t matter anyways and we need a revolution.

So, you don’t know how it would help. Either the Democrats stay in Power and won’t change, or the Republicans gain power and nothing will change until 2028 (or later, depending how project 2025 comes along). Hoping that they may change on Palestine is foolish. You are correct about the support, it should never be unconditional.

I already told you, you’re just ignoring it.

Since you said support shouldn’t be unconditional, where’s your line in the sand? Genocide apparently is fine for you.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

As a US citizen, the DNC and GOP ultimately serve the same donors and are aligned.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

You mean the vote that was boycotted by 6 of the 15 soviet occupied countries due to how it was phrased among other things? There was no independence option in the referendum, just how should the USSR be preserved.

The graphic shows that. It’s true that at the time, the vast majority of people voted to retain it, and the vast majority of people wish it never dissolved, which is why I included both metrics.

Also most of the Easter European countries voted to declare independence shortly after.

Crucially, Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been liberalizing and destroying the USSR from within, like the creation of a secondary Presidential position that stood against the centralized system and overly beauracratized it. The coup of 1991 further lost people’s faith in the government and they seceded, but they did not get to vote on being Socialist or not in the aftermath.

Then came Shock Therapy and roughly 7 million deaths due to the adoption of Capitalism against the will of the people.

I was around 20 at the time and in one of the boycotting countries. We later had a vote for independence, I think the support was around 80% or 90%.

Based on what you’ve told me about yourself, you may want to look at the figure again, but I won’t dox you.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

Yea, the first link was just how people felt like a while ago when a lot of ex soviet countries were still struggling over a decade ago.

Communism and Socialism are still more preferred than Capitalism for the majority of ex-soviets.

That would make sense too, if an economic union collapses your country is fucked for a while. Like if the EU collapsed it would have even more severe consequences and any poll would give similar results for decades to come.

Depends, if the EU shifts to Socialism it will probably repeat polling in AES states with mass popular support, what you’re describing would probably happen if it collapsed into fascism or barbarism.

I don’t know why they would vote for socialism suddenly during the votes for independence.

During the independence votes, the only indicator was that the State would become independent, not that it would become Capitalist. Where are you getting the idea that Socialism was unpopular?

If Russia couldn’t do that with 60 years of killing, imprisoning, slaving and deporting political dissidents, artists, scientists, gays, jews and people not ethnically russian than a referendum for independence ain’t gonna make socialism happen either.

Killing and imprisoning fascists was a good thing. I don’t know what you mean by “make Socialism happen,” it was already Socialist. They wanted to keep Socialism. Additionally, Double Genocide Theory is Nazi apologia and ahistorical. Same with the idea that the USSR was “enslaving people.”

An Anarchist carrying water for the Nazis, color me surprised.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

You claimed the USSR was murdering jews and non-Russians en-masse, not hard to see that you were calling to Double Genocide Theory from that. If you want to correct your statements you can.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

The idea of a “Jewish Genocide” by the Soviets is Double Genocide Theory. That’s why I said you’re free to correct your statements. Yes, the Soviets did some bad things, but you’re carrying water for fascists by defending them as “political prisoners” and claiming a Jewish genocide.

Cowbee , 1 day ago

I didn’t claim only fascists were sent to gulags, the vast majority of political prisoners were fascists.