@Yliaster @davel Lenin was not a fascist in any way you try to define the word. That is actually an insane thing to say.For one thing he wasn't an autocrat; the Bolsheviks worked collectively to build the USSR - Lenin was put in charge because he was the face of the revolution and became the most prominent figure of it. He was already the de facto leader and they made it official to streamline the process.Secondly Lenin didn't "betray" anything; he acted according to the USSR's conditions.

@Yliaster @davel Communism was the end goal of the Bolsheviks; not their immediate policy. They made it clear multiple times that communism was something you work toward through a transitional socialist state - not something you just do.

Well done! Saving this, and hoping you'll do more like it :)

Great intro, only thing I'd add would be to note that it should also be made explicit that socialism and communism stages here have their own contradictions as well, and they too will continue to evolve going forward.

I'd suggest that we should think of this less of a directed progression, but rather a graph of states and edges connecting them. When you're at any particular state, you can transition to a different adjacent state from it. For example, capitalism can transition to socialism, regress back to feudalism, or turn into fascism. These are all possible outcomes based on how the material conditions develop. But we cannot jump from capitalism directly to communism because these states are not directly adjacent to each other. There is too much change necessary, and therefore you need an intermediate state like socialism to make the transition. But that too can revert back to capitalism as we saw in USSR. Thinking of this in terms of a two dimensional space adds a bit more nuance rather than framing it as an inevitable linear progression towards communism.

Ahh another maximum effort post by Cowbee! I actually liked what Pugjesus had to say in his meme post but as always you offer a well thought out and extended explanation and counter. Not sure how you both feel about each other but as a filthy fucking lurker myself I greatly appreciate the discourse from you both.

became the thing he was supposed to destroy

Please don't get your politics from Star wars

cc @rimu@piefed.social

Thanks so much!

Pretty sure PJ hates me, and I don't care for PJ myself. PJ harbors social fascist views and is permanently wrong about Marxist and Marxist-Leninist theory and history, yet is perfectly happy to continue making terrible memes. Just my 2 cents.

Thank you!

Those are great additions! I'll see if I can add that somewhere, thanks!

You cannot assert they are material, either. It’s about observation, though, not merely categorization.

I can, because supernatural processes do not exist.

If you can’t know everything, there’s at least something(s) you can’t know.

There's a difference between saying it's unlikely that everything will be known and saying there's something in particular that cannot be known.

And because these processes are occurring, they could not have arisen from an infinite loop, because that would suggest infinity had passed for them to occur, which is impossible.

This does not follow.

The soviet union was both socialist and democratic. Why do you believe otherwise? What do you think socialism looks like?

I don't think factionalism is a good thing, and in the context of the USSR it likely would have been a bad thing. That doesn't make it less democratic or more fascist. War communism was for the purpose of the Russian Civil War, and getting your information on it from liberals isn't going to help you understand it.

What do you consider their social fascist views? And yeah they do seem to treat Marxist theory with a bullish attitude as if it's a monolith. Tbf so did I for a long time.

PJ labels themselves as "vaguely left-wing," but rejects both Marxism and anarchism. In doing so, they cape for factions like the German SPD, who murdered communists and assisted Hitler's rise to power. Further, their views on the history of socialist countries and the global south in general is absolutely drenched in liberal historiography. No matter what evidence is shown, they dogmatically cling to right-wing views of socialism, even to the point of condemning the Black Panther Party (though this was over a year ago).

One only needs to see how much time PJ spends in anti-communist safe havens for Zionists, such as TankieJerk and MeanwhileOnGrad, to see that PJ is sort of trapped in what they feel is left-wing views, but no actual theory or practice to speak of forces them to adopt pro-imperialist viewpoints. You can see that all of their posts and comments regarding Marxism and socialist countries either rely on strawmen that do not exist in reality, or purely repeat Red Scare dogma.

In short, PJ thinks they are left, but doesn't accept non-western viewpoints on history as genuine. Further, PJ doesn't understand Marxism nor anarchism, yet is more than happy to keep repeating misinformation on them, a factor of their obsession with the political compass. This leads them to be held back into supporting imperialism and demonizing socialism.

Just follow PJ's "responses" to me and see how dishonest they are.

Dang so a typical fucking liberal then? Disappointing. I had thought they were, at worse, just an anarkiddy. Do ya reckon they have at least read Kropotkin? honestly, being anti black panther is a fascist flag for sure and enough to know about someone to discredit them.

If what they've said is true, they've read a few isolated Marxist and anarchist texts, but given how distorted their understanding is of Marxism and anarchism it's really difficult to suggest that they comprehend it. What I believe happens is that their liberal historiography causes them to take from the little theory they have read that which conforms to their pre-existing beliefs, the way someone can try to quote-farm What is to be Done? to suggest Lenin would have supported voting for the DNC (when he absolutely wouldn't).

I'm no PJ expert, this is all based on conversations from over a year ago, as we haven't directly spoken since PJ permabanned me from every comm they moderate after losing an argument on an unrelated comm.

To be truthful, I made this post in the first place because I wanted to have something to reference regarding the problems with PJ's historiography. Not PJ exclusively, it's common for metaphysics and idealism to cloud one's judgement, but certainly prompted by them.

Hey I remember being like that back in the day when I first started reading history seriously. I would like to think I have grown past that behaviour and thinking though. I've got to thank the hardcore anarchists and commies that have made that possible and it's largely been through high effort content like yours that politely point in the direction of more learning. Regarding PJ, perhaps they're still early in their leftist journey, with any luck they only become a better ally... Or maybe they're just an idiot that won't do the homework haha

I was the same way, years ago! I think we all were, or at least most of us. Anti-communism is a religion in the west, and we are all molded by that. Regarding PJ's potential for growth, I hope so too! Ideally they join an actual organization and start treating political theory as a guide to action, and not a source for making memes.

Anti communism is a religion.. jeez ain't that the truth. I was raised as a proud Christian conservative that bordered nazi. Took my entire 20s to unravel that mess and I'm still working at it...
I think activism is a great reality check for a lot of these online types who meme about everything. Getting a real sense of community and actually talking with in person socialists of all kinds of extremes and flavours is humbling. Protests are good for this I think, at least for me it normalised leftist thinking a lot for me. It's hard to hate commies and anarchists when they're marching with you for what you believe in!

Yep, agreed! Practice is what theory is for, when theory just becomes a hobby it's useless, and becomes extremely easy to distort.

O7

Well said comrade, keep up the good work 👍

Responding to @Ourst@lemmy.sdf.org here for this comment, since @Pandantic@midwest.social tagged me on a comm I can't actually post or comment in for "voting while tankie." This was for the following meme:

And subsequent comment:

CowBee is a lemmy user who posts large swathes of text and quotes random bits of theory to back up support Russia/China/North Korea. Dengism is the state-capitalism side of “communism”. A loser who hides behind ‘the theory’ to push authoritarian state propaganda.

There are a few key lies here.

1. I don't quote "random bits of theory" much at all. I did do that years ago, but learned that that's extremely ineffective. Instead, I explain my points in my own words, and use facts, statistics, and primary sources for talking about contemporary politics. Discussion of theory is largely useless with those that have no interest in learning, which was a major mistake I used to make while talking about socialism and communism online.

2. "Dengism" does not exist as an ideology. Deng Xiaoping Theory exists, and largely refers to Reform and Opening Up. When Ourst alleges that it is "state capitalism," we have to investigate what changed between the Mao era and the Deng era, and the PRC today.

Contrary to common belief, the economy wasn't 100% publicly owned and planned under Mao or the Gang of Four. Private and cooperative ownership existed, and did so not because of a belief that private ownership is better than public in the abstract, but because of the level of development in the productive forces of China. What Deng Xiaoping did was largely carry over plans from Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong in opening up secondary, non-critical industries to foreign investment, with dominant state ownership.

What is "state capitalism?" It best describes an economy that is both capitalist and heavily state run and controlled. What is capitalism, then? Capitalism is a mode of production where private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, ie governing the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The Republic of Korea, dominated by megacorporations like Samsung while employing strong state controls, is an excellent example of such a system.

Why is it important to judge what is principle in determining the mode of production? Because no economy on the planet is "pure." Whoever controls the large firms and key industries indirectly controls the small/medium firms and secondary industries. As an example, the rubber factory has control over the rubber ball factory.

In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are all dominated by state ownership. This is qualitatively different from capitalism, and as such this gets fundamentally different results. If we use the lessons on dialectical materialism learned in the topic post, we can see that public, socialized ownership is the rising factor in the PRC, as the privatized sector grows it socializes itself and prepares for easier integration into the public sector. This is a "birdcage" economy, capital is let free within specified confines.

Why allow private ownership at all? To fill in the gaps left by the public sector, to help with technology transfer from the west, to stave off war by integrating heavily into the global economy, and to accelerate the growth and development of small and medium firms. Is it necessary to do so? No, but for the strategy chosen by the PRC it is undeniably working out for them, as the PRC continues to grow and rise.

In other words, "billionaires vs. no billionaires" isn't a binary choice. It's a tradeoff, with either path offering their own strengths and weaknesses. The soviet union took the "no billionaires" path and was isolated by the west, weakening it's global integration. The DPRK and Cuba took the "no billionaires" path, and while they have been doing very well despite their circumstances, they havw been some of the most isolated countries on the planet as a consequence. The PRC's decision to integrate with the global economy came with new contradictions, but also new opportunities, and by retaining public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy has done so without undermining socialism, but building on top of it.

1. The allegations that I "hide behind theory to push authoritarian state propaganda." This is essentially making the point that I phrasemonger and cherry-pick quotes from Marx, Engels, etc. to defend what shouldn't be. The problem with these allegations is that I don't. I reference facts and statistics, and I use the methodology of Marxism-Leninism to form my arguments. I don't simply say whatever Marx and Engels said is infallible and ignore material reality, I begin with material reality and apply dialectical materialist analysis to it (see the post above).

It must be extremely convenient to claim everything I say is simply propaganda. However, there's absolutely no investigation in the quality of the sources I use, just a blanket statement. If Ourst has an example of this, I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

Overall, I'm confused by the point Ourst is making here, because they aren't engaging with real points I make. I suggest they speak to me directly, rather than hiding in a comm I'm banned from.

🫡

Thanks comrade, will do!

Addendum, for fun. After responding to the allegations from @Ourst@lemmy.sdf.org, let's see what kinds of things they post.

Both are against the DPRK, which is obvious. The former is just the assertion that the DPRK isn't democratic, believing it humorous that it calls itself as such. The latter hits on similar beats, with the addition of depicting Kim Jong-Un, a Korean man, as a yellow creature. Ourst also depicts Xi Jinping as a yellow cartoon bear, and has several memes hinting that they've been accused of racism by Marxist-Leninists. Shocking!

Returning to the topic of the DPRK and whether or not it's democratic, I'll pull from professor Roland Boer's book Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:

The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.

How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels.
As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.

To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability

As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.

I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK's voting process includes single candidate approval voting. Without the context of the candidate selection process, this is spun as entirely anti-democratic.

The DPRK doesn't have a liberal democracy. They do have a comprehensive candidate election system, direct voting at all levels of government, 3 political parties, and a system of approval voting. They do not align with what the west thinks democracy looks like, but instead this form of democracy evolved out of Korea's struggles against Japanese colonialism and the structures set up during that time period.

Ourst has nothing actually backing their claims of the DPRK being undemocratic, and additionally seems to think it's okay to depict both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un as yellow caricatures. Even if one could claim a single time is a coincidence, the fact that it's consistent across Ourst's depictions of asians, and their defensive stance surrounding allegations of Ourst's racism, this appears to be a pattern.

Addendum 3, for @PugJesus@piefed.social' third post on the Nazi bar MeanwhileOnGrad, where PugJesus deliberately misgenders and sexually harasses me. Fun.

Boggles the mind that some people take ghouls like this seriously. Even moreso than genocide denial like this is allowed in any decent instance on the Fediverse. Admins need to start taking this seriously.

Communists are allowed in Lemmy because Lemmy was made by communists, pretty clear cut. As for the 1930s famine being "genocide," this idea is simply fringe among contemporary historians, same with claims of white genocide in South Africa. For example, serious bourgeois academic sources tend to say it was a failure of planning, rather than genocide. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:

[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above,' rather than of a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.

Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:

From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.

Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

Muggeridge and Jones reported on the famine. Völkischer Beobachter reported on it as intentional, and then spread the story around further. We are not qustioning the legitimacy of the famine, but whether or not it was intentional, which all evidence post-opening of the soviet archives points to it not being intentional.

Why do people take me seriously? Because I take historiography fairly seriously, and don't just treat history like a collection of tidbits to make memes out of.

btw bbg, screencapped the whole post, even the parts where you ramble on about things irrelevant to the point in order to give your your bootlicking the old Ben Shapiro shine. Keep watching, sweetheart, I know you can’t live without me 💋

Extremely strange misgendering (don't call me babygirl) and sexual harassment, but at this point it's entirely unsurprising from you. Either way, you've made a dozen or so posts about me, shouldn't it be you that can't live without me?

More:

I consider myself pretty stubborn, verbose, and terminally online, and even I can’t hold a candle to his constant, tedious, and repetitive drivel. Quantity is truly a quality all its own!

I have yet to see you explain how anything I post is "drivel." I certainly am thorough, you won't find me denying that, but I can't seem to see you actually managing to discredit what I have to say. I do agree with you on one bit, you are likely terminally online.

♥️

https://piefed.social/c/meanwhileongrad/p/1824999/after-getting-an-unprompted-ping-from-a-tankie-i-searched-my-name-and-phew-looks-like-t

You really upset him and made him make a post that looks like a corkboard and a strings tying conspiracies together.

Oh shit, didn't see that, lmao. Kinda disappointed that throughout that whole "exchange" PJ never even tried to counter any of the sources I brought. You'd think a history major would love a chance to debunk a "tedious tankie" if I'm so clearly wrong, but no, they just repeated that I'm tedious and ran to the Nazi bar every time.

As for the misgendering bit from PJ, "bbg" means "babygirl," which was combined with the kiss emoji. I am not a girl, and I felt both to be extremely creepy and unwanted. Call me a "tankie" or whatever, but please don't resort to creepy sexual remarks (not directed at you).

You mean to tell me the Rome-obsessed commie hater is also weird with pronouns? Next you'll tell me PJ is banned from Blahaj for not respecting pronouns...

You’d think a history major would love a chance to debunk a “tedious tankie” if I’m so clearly wrong, but no, they just repeated that I’m tedious and ran to the Nazi bar every time.

It's his safe space, no one can question narratives there. Even if it's all propaganda by capitalists.

You're the only major ML on Lemmy I feel actually respects people on here.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Honestly I don't blame anyone for being tired, being an activist in the west is enough to drain anyone and thus lashing out online becomes an outlet for people, but I try to keep aggression as low as possible and back up any claims that go against the grain.

I can, because supernatural processes do not exist.

How do you know this?

Because this implies they exist outside of the material universe. Relying on gods, supernatural forces, or other impossible phenomena to explain real, existing phenomena gets in the way of actually understanding reality around us, which is critical so that we may actually change reality to suit our own ends.

Because this implies they exist outside of the material universe.

And how do you know nothing exists out of the material universe?

Relying on gods, supernatural forces, or other impossible phenomena to explain real, existing phenomena gets in the way of actually understanding reality around us

Only if these explanations are false (god is not impossible, in fact god necessarily exists, see the Logic), which you just presuppose. How do you know your assumptions are better than anyone else’s? This is the height of philosophy?

God necessarily does not exist. Nothing exists out of the material universe, all thought, ideas, and matter exists in the material world. The fact that the material world is observable and knowable, and that not a single idealist notion has ever nor could ever be proven, by nature means materialism is the correct position. Idealism stands against science, and is fading away as human knowledge better understands the world and universe around us.

Science is necessarily idealist, as the Logic proves (and you can read Winfield’s lectures on the logic as well, the first one explains the same thing); it’s very simple to prove this, since beginning with foundations (as “materialism” does) causes everything that follows to fall into opinion. Now I don’t think you know what you mean when you refer to “idealism,” since the first and third of the “3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism” are not in opposition to “Hegel’s idealis[m].” The general features you give of “idealism” are not general at all and you would know that if you’d read any philosophy whatsoever. I just can’t believe you think you’ve reached the Truth as opposed to all of those idealist philosophers yet haven’t even bothered to try and understand any of the history or basics of philosophy. I mean you think the trivial notions that “everything is connected and should be understood in context” and “when you add on a bunch of little things then a big thing happens” are some big revelations that elevate “materialism” and that a “dialectical relationship” is just when two things act upon each other; no wonder you haven’t touched Hegel, because this is what you think he brought to the table.

Nothing exists out of the material universe, all thought, ideas, and matter exists in the material world.

There simply is no way to prove this from your perspective, relying on experience is already begging the question by assuming the determinacies of experience you intend to prove; anyways the notion that God would imply something existing outside of the material world already shows you don’t know what God is (the absolute). As far as I know, Hegel never posited anything existing outside of the material world.

not a single idealist notion has ever nor could ever be proven

More accurately you wouldn’t accept that proof because you assume that proof must be experiential (which is just begging the question again), despite “materialism” as a position referring to matter in general, which is an idealization that can never be directly experienced or observed, despite experience relying on onto-logical categories to be determined, and despite the myriad of logical arguments that can be found in Marx and Engels’ works.

Science is necessarily materialist, it proceeds from the basis that matter is real and that the supernatural does not exist. It doesn't do this because of "opinion," but because there is not a single shred of evidence of the supernatural. Insisting on the existence of something outside of the material merely because it cannot be empirically disproven is still not evidence of this existing.

As for me "not understanding idealism" and "not reading any philosophy whatsoever," both of these are false assumptions. I have engaged with Hegel, and not just through Marx, Engels, etc. but through the source material itself. The purpose of this post is to give an extremely simplified introduction to dialectical materialism, not to give an expansive and comprehensive summary of idealism. I spent a few paragraphs on idealism, if you think I am genuinely reducing the entirety of idealist philosophy into a few paragraphs then this is just naked bad-faith.

As for the existence of god, an Absolute, a being outside of physical limitations and transcending them, this is without any base whatsoever. Simply claiming that I would not accept proof does not excuse you from providing it for your arguments to land, all you've done is insult me while utterly failing to disprove materialism.

You do not have a correct notion of science. You just ignored what I said.

Insisting on the existence of something outside of the material merely because it cannot be empirically disproven is still not evidence of this existing.

I feel like slamming my head against the wall. That isn’t what happened. I did not insist that things outside the material exist because this cannot be empirically disproven, I said that you cannot assert that nothing outside of the material exists because there is no way for you to prove this within your view of what constitutes proof.

The purpose of this post is to give an extremely simplified introduction to dialectical materialism, not to give an expansive and comprehensive summary of idealism. I spent a few paragraphs on idealism, if you think I am genuinely reducing the entirety of idealist philosophy into a few paragraphs then this is just naked bad-faith.

I did not accuse you of “reducing the entirety of idealist philosophy into a few paragraphs,” I accused you of listing as general features of idealism things which are not generally the case for “idealist” philosophers.

As for me “not understanding idealism” and “not reading any philosophy whatsoever,” both of these are false assumptions.

These are not assumptions. Read my explanation.

As for the existence of god, an Absolute, a being outside of physical limitations

The absolute cannot be outside of anything. Do you know what words mean? And the absolute is not a being, the absolute is being, and the fact of existence necessarily leads to the absolute. Read the Science of Logic.

Simply claiming that I would not accept proof does not excuse you from providing it for your arguments to land.

And I have; you refused to read where I told you the arguments are when they cannot be condensed to a quickly typed up message, and refused to acknowledge the arguments I gave directly or otherwise misunderstood them while simultaneously accusing me of arguing in bad-faith based on that misunderstanding. You haven't made a single actual argument in this entire conversation.

I feel like slamming my head against the wall. That isn’t what happened. I did not insist that things outside the material exist because this cannot be empirically disproven, I said that you cannot assert that nothing outside of the material exists because there is no way for you to prove this within your view of what constitutes proof.

This is essentially your own trap, though. You're falling into pure agnosticism with respect to something that has never been proven, and you're dodging the necessity of providing proof by saying I won't accept it. I can understand why you'd be frustrated given the task of proving idealism correct to a materialist in your hands, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw you a bone.

I'm aware that you didn't literally make the definitive claim that the supernatural exists. I carried the argument to its logical conclusion, either there is proof of the supernatural or there isn't. Refusing to provide proof is not an excuse to not do so.

I did not accuse you of “reducing the entirety of idealist philosophy into a few paragraphs,” I accused you of listing as general features of idealism things which are not generally the case for “idealist” philosophers.

Go on, elaborate then. Is this another point that you just make without base? An open accusation and nothing to back it?

These are not assumptions. Read my explanation.

They are assumptions. Just because I have a different view of philosophy does not mean I haven't engaged with it, and just because it seems evident that you've spent a great deal of time studying idealism does not mean you are correct about it with respect to dialectical materialism. Same goes for our simultaneous conversation on the Law of Value.

The absolute cannot be outside of anything. Do you know what words mean?

The Absolute that the subjective Absolute works towards is necessarily outside of human development. The steam engine did not arise from the self-movement of the Absolute, it could not have existed in human brains until steam was understood, and could not have come into reality until the definite conditions for its existence appeared. Ideas are not in reality prior to matter, thus the assumption that ideas can be prior to matter place the objective absolute outside of human development as a sort of post-facto resolution. This is why Hegel ends up affirming god, as without god his line of logic is incomplete.

And the absolute is not a being, the absolute is being, and the fact of existence necessarily leads to the absolute. Read the Science of Logic.

I understand what you believe as someone (at least in this conversation) taking the side of Hegel, but I am not just talking about Hegel, but idealism in general. This also involves Berkley and other forms of subjective idealism, as opposed to Hegel's objective idealism. Existence does not lead to the Absolute, Hegel is wrong. Material is prior to ideas.

And I have; you refused to read where I told you the arguments are when they cannot be condensed to a quickly typed up message, and refused to acknowledge the arguments I gave directly or otherwise misunderstood them while simultaneously accusing me of arguing in bad-faith based on that misunderstanding. You haven’t made a single actual argument in this entire conversation.

My arguments are the post itself, you claimed to be critiquing specific points I've made in the comments and this post as well. Your original point is that I cannot known that the supernatural does not exist, I understand perfectly well what you're getting at. What this line of logic that you pose necessarily leads down is agnosticism and an inability to effectively understand the world around us. The more we interact with the world and understand it, the less ground idealism has to stand on as we gather more and more materialist understanding.

I'm also aware that not all idealism is purely concerned with the supernatural, but instead may place consciousness or ideas as prior to matter instead of literal ghosts and whatnot. Hegel, as you know, is from the German school of idealism which is more objective than Berkeley's subjective idealism.

As a side note, when I looked at your comment history to check your earlier arguments in this thread, I noticed that you started talking with PugJesus. I'm sorry for the frustration you'll feel, if you think talking to me is frustrating. PJ has absolutely no understanding of Marxism and is generally a social fascist.

The quote pulled from Critique of the Gotha Programme is directly talking about conditions contemporary to Marx, with no socialist states. It's really as simple as that, not an argument against the state in the hands of the proletariat, nor did PJ respond to your excerpts from Anti-Dühring or the Manifesto of the Communist Party. I know you already know this, I'm not informing you of this, just laughing a bit at it.

I’m sorry things have gotten aggressive, I didn’t intend for that at first. I appreciate your words on the state ownership of the mop thing. Things are going in a circle in both conversations and I just want to be done with it. I have things I’d like to say but at this point I’d just be repeating myself and fueling the argument again. Just forget everything.

That's fair! I didn't really intend on it going this way either, and to be honest I didn't really take you seriously at first, which at least partially contributed to the spiral. Practically none of the non-Marxists here have read a word of Capital, and you've seen what passes for "Marxism" on this corner of Lemmy with PugJesus. I wish you well, and will admit that you certainly know more about Hegel than I do, even if I disagree with your evaluation of Marxism.

Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

I see a Russian surname and a title referencing the USSR. Comrade, I couldn't find this author on the Russian version of Google—only on the English one.

Comrade, I strongly urge you not to rely on Western authors, even if they describe positive developments within the USSR.

If you are interested, you would be better off reading contemporary Russian authors instead.

I recommend this particular author to you; he is a highly renowned contemporary Russian historian with leftist views—someone who plays an active role in debunking myths about the USSR.

https://litmir.club/br/?b=904208

And I don't understand who it is you keep mentioning and referring to here. Could you please explain it to me?

I'd read more Russian authors if more were translated into English. Sadly, it's hard to come by, and for the purposes of debunking anticommunist claims, Statesian authors tend to make westerners less skeptical.

As for the person I am replying to, it's really unimportant. Just a western anticommunist.

I’d read more Russian authors if more were translated into English. Sadly, it’s hard to come by

Finally, Comrade, you understand what I've been trying to explain to you for so long.

You tell me I'm subjective, basing my statements solely on my own experience, and I tell you it's because you haven't read the books I've read, nothing more.

And as we've already noted, the books I've read are somewhat different from the ones you've read, judging by your reaction to them. That's why I kept saying that everything here is somehow different, seemingly in its place, but somehow different...

I highly recommend you read the works of this modern historian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Zhukov_(historian)

Here's his book, which explains the fatal mistake the Bolsheviks made by not listening to Stalin.

The book is called: Stalin's First Defeat. 1917-1922

In Brief:

This book recounts the early political career of the future leader of the Soviet Union. It tells how, during the years of revolution and civil war, he tried to preserve Russia's unity, preventing its disintegration or fragmentation into national republics. It also explores who opposed him in this effort, and why Stalin was ultimately unable to achieve victory in such a brutal and uncompromising struggle. Based on unique archival documents, most of which have only recently been declassified, the book offers a completely new perspective on the events of those turbulent years. It provides a fresh perspective on questions that remain extremely sensitive today, convincingly proving the seemingly unbelievable: the views of Stalin—the third-largest figure in the Bolshevik Party in 1917—and Milyukov—the leader of the Cadet Party and ideologist of the "White movement"—were completely aligned on the question of what the country should be. The disintegration of Russia, as early as the spring of 1917, was initiated by the separatist aspirations of the Ukrainian Central Rada. In the spring of 1919, Stalin was removed from Moscow, barring him from participating in the leadership of the party and state until the end of the civil war; in 1920, there were no serious grounds for recognizing the independence of the Baltic republics; the USSR, in the constitutional form approved in December 1922 and which remained in effect until December 1991, was created over Stalin's objections, in favor of the left-wing radical utopias championed by Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotsky.

He wrote many books, I recommend him to you. His first book was published in 1995; he was the first to publish it.

As for the person I am replying to, it’s really unimportant. Just a western anticommunist.

Regarding the "Holodomor": I have a question for this anti-communist. What possible motive would Stalin have had for exterminating Ukrainian peasants, given that they were the ones producing the most grain in the USSR? I would only believe such a claim if it were on par with Putin blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline.

Such an act would be the behavior of a mentally unstable madman. It would imply that Stalin killed Ukrainians purely for pleasure—even at the cost of incurring economic losses. There is absolutely no common sense or logic in such actions. Why would he do it?

Incidentally, the Holodomor was not confined solely to Ukraine; that summer was marked by a severe drought.

That year, famine struck the Volga region as well, and affected several Eastern European nations—Poland, Hungary, and Romania, if I recall correctly.

As for the repressions and Stalin's personal involvement in them: the peak of the purges occurred between the summer of 1937 and the autumn of 1938. During this period, the NKVD was headed by Yezhov. Following Yezhov's arrest, he was succeeded by Beria, who—in an incredibly short span of time—ordered the release of a million people from prison.

Subsequently, a major public trial was organized to prosecute the very NKVD officials who had issued unlawful orders. The entire foreign diplomatic corps, as well as representatives of the international press, were invited to attend this trial. The court transcripts were published in the press.

This raises a pertinent question: what possible benefit could Stalin have derived from this entire spectacle?

Zhukov posits that the repressions were triggered by the "Stalin Constitution," which envisaged free elections for local Party leadership positions. Fearing the loss of their posts, local Party officials began eliminating their rivals or engaging in excessive zeal to curry favor with their superiors.

Another significant contributing factor was the looming threat of a major war; the domestic political climate had become strained to the breaking point, and people began to view everyone around them as a potential Trotskyist or German spy. Furthermore, it can now be stated with certainty that a conspiracy was brewing among the military elite to oust Stalin from power.

Yet, at the very same time:

GDP growth during the 1930s stood at 14% per year.

By 1930, the USSR had already emerged as a global power.

The 1939 Census: According to the census results, the population of the USSR totaled 167 million people. Over the entire decade, the total population growth amounted to approximately 15 million people.

Read the correspondence between Stalin and Sholokhov.

Sholokhov makes some very bold statements in it.

This is what you wrote about.

https://neodemocracy.blogspot.com/2020/10/from-correspondence-between-masholokhov.html

Very interesting, thank you for sharing!

For everyone, this serves as a clear indication that Stalin was not the monster he is portrayed to be in the West—and not only in the West, for many in Russia hold that very same view. Had Stalin truly been a monster, he would have responded to letters like these by first having Sholokhov shot, then roasting him on a barbecue somewhere at a dacha near Moscow, and finally devouring him alongside Comrade Beria... )))

Stalin maintained a correspondence with Sholokhov almost until the very end of his life.

Mikhail Sholokhov was awarded the First-Class Stalin Prize in March 1941 for his renowned epic novel, And Quiet Flows the Don. The prize carried a monetary value of 100,000 rubles—a sum the writer promptly donated in its entirety to the USSR Defense Fund, doing so even before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War.

That is how true Communists conduct themselves... both of them!