@commiespontex: Marxist-Leninists mistake Marx’s theory of historical development as saying the productive forces must be captured, expanded and developed as transition in order for communism to be produced. What he is actually saying is that the productive forces of a given mode of production develop producing the conditions that make revolutionary transformation (communism) historically possible. Marx was not a determinist and he did not centre economic development as the motor of history. He saw history as contingent on class struggle as the motor or “great lever” as he called it. First quote from Conspectus on The Holy Family, 1844 Second quote from Conspectus on Statism and Anarchy, 1874 #marxism #leftist #communism #communisation #politicaltheory

𝐃𝐕𝐗 :

leftcom

Rogerbakkon 🍓🔻 :

Yet you guys have no accomplishment moving on. Leftcom BS as usual

allan :

The whole point of ML is to be socialist, you can't jump from Capitalism to Communism because that's what the socialist state is created for. The market argument is terrible too considering that Marx said capitalism was essential to build the economy and lenin used that to rebuild it after the revolution and created the socialist state after.

☆South Pole🇵🇱🇦🇶 :

LMAO

soso :

Charlie :

I disagree

Bubule :

I'm not an ML, but I think you are wrong in assuming that MLs are for state capitalism or capital accumulation. In Gotha Critique it's made evident that even in the lower phase of communism there exists an inequality in distribution. This is dependant on the development of the productive forces. Therefore, moving into higher-phase communism requires such development of productive forces, that there is an abundance in production that can overcome these inequalities. And I'm not saying the USSR was in socialism, it only had a socialist economy, but without workers' control or democracy.

KamiPhoenix :

and most importantly: ML is wrong when applied to today

dalfio :

so immediate abolition of wage labor then? what do you hypothesize society would look like at first?

Léo O :

In the second Marx quote he says that he proletariats own self abolition requires *governmental* means. That is a very important point which Marx himself wasn’t able to flesh out since there weren’t many socialist governments at the time! But he was smart enough to recognize this major condition of the proletariat’s self activity. You don’t really seem to address the governmental aspect, but it seems relevant since you critique Marxism Leninism for a being a theory of nation building, and hence, tied up with the state.

sheebdog :

“Forcibly transformed through revolutionary struggle”. Uh, the quote you just finished reading is Marx speaking about forcible transformation at the hands of a newly formed socialist state/government

chuunicommunist :

Though there are numerous mistakes in your analysis, I think you have over conflated Marxism Leninism with dengism. Lenin's theory holds that the intensification of class struggle after the revolution is a critical piece of socialism.

igrig :

looking very sharp today goat! I'm going to try and disagree with you here somewhat, though I also agree to a large extent with what you're saying here. It is certainly true that many MLs have overly focussed on the "development of the productive forces" failing to undertake the development of productive relations, including the real founder of ML, Stalin. However, I am not convinced that the issue is necessarily fundamental to ML. Though the revolutions Mao led ultimately affected a split with ML, largely after his death, his practice was fundamentally still building on and adding to ML, and I don't think he can really be accused of overly emphasising the "development of the productive forces". So I agree to the extent that I believe a break must be made with the aspects of ML practice that made this error, though I'm as yet unconvinced this issue is fundamental to ML and inseparable from it as a whole, but would be curious to hear an argument to the contrary. Appreciate you!

David Mende :

i liked how i understood non of that

Bell :

Lowk pointless video

Shesh :

So what is to be done then

☭ :

bro i love you bro youre my favourite content creator bro

DilettanteUK :

Marxism, in all forms is only a critique of capitalism. It never manages to resolve itself into a proposal. Which is why Lenin and others had to make attempts to resolve the theory. And did sounder both time and political pressure. Which is why it’s all been flawed.

swoletariat1312 :

Purist, dogmatist slop. Keep treating the world like it’s a factory floor in mid-19th century Germany.

Cover Yourself In Commodities :

I don't think the actual theory of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism is incompatible with immediate transformation of social relations, it's just that past ML experiments didn't figure it out and ended up stuck not moving past a certain stage in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

🏴‍☠️ :

good video unc

Micheluzz 🚩 :

put words to my thoughts