Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Cowbee

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us

He/him or they/them, doesn’t matter too much

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Cowbee ,

The US is currently the world's dominant Imperialist power, if "global stability" means extracting vast amounts of wealth from the global south then perhaps your idea of "global stability" needs to be reevaluated.

Cowbee ,

I didn't say things were simple. I said the US is the largest Imperialist power in the world, which is true, and suggested reevaluating your world view.

The US is not holding onto hegemonic power for "stability," nations can govern themselves just fine. The US is holding onto hegemonic power for profit.

No, it's absolutely not simple, but it is glaringly obvious that pretending the US is important on the global stage for "stability" is purely a western viewpoint that ignores the US' contributions as a supporter of terrorism around the world whenever its profits are threatened.

Cowbee ,

What have I said makes me a tankie? Saying that the US is bad for the world, actually? That's all forms of Leftism, whether they be Anarchist, Marxist, or so forth.

If you're just going to resort to Ad Hominem instead of defending your claims or addressing my counters to them, why even reply?

Cowbee ,

What agenda do I have when you made the incredibly evil claim that the US is important for "global stability?" If you just walk through life making knee-jerk reactions every time someone points out something you said is wrong, rather than engaging with the points brought up, what do you hope to accomplish?

Cowbee ,

  1. How have I been a "troll?"

  2. How have I demonstrated a "lack of openness?"

  3. How have I suggested that US Imperialism is a good thing?

  4. How have I been a "tankie?"

Cowbee ,

How am I a tankie?

Cowbee ,

My focus is on getting you to answer a single question of mine, or respond to a single point, without just screaming "tankie!"

Cowbee ,

What right wing media advocates for Communism? Hating democrats and republicans is a very leftist thing to do.

I get what you're trying to do for OP, but I find it highly unlikely that they are a fox news viewer, or otherwise.

Cowbee ,

Wage Labor and Capital is a good start.

Cowbee ,

That's not entirely true.

Capitalism itself is unsustainable, so as time goes on, the temp rises towards the boiling point. Bread and circuses delay this boiling point, but do not stop it. As long as the temperature continues to rise, so to speak, so too will the boiling point be approached.

Cowbee ,

What's unclear?

Cowbee ,

):

Cowbee ,

Any kinds of social programs, generally, are concessions.

Cowbee ,

Communism can only be truly global. You can have worker coops in a servive economy, which is a form of Socialism, but depending on the production outsourced in Capitalist manners means the economy overall contributes to global Capitalism, which can eventually take on the character of Imperialism.

Most 1st world economies are in fact Imperialist, they cannot exist in the manner they do without hyper-exploitation of the global south.

Cowbee ,

The largest current of leftists aren't saying you cannot vote for Biden, and that you should vote third party, but that ultimately change comes from outside the electoral system.

Cowbee ,

States controlled by bourgeois interests are a consequence of Capitalism and an extension of it, not some random freak occurance.

Cowbee ,

What is a "middle class?" Are you referring to the Petite Bourgeoisie, or well-paid Proletarians?

Cowbee ,

Bourgeois refers to Capitalists. Rich certainly doesn't sound like a "middle" class, lol.

Cowbee ,

Everyone pollutes, Capitalists drive the systems that pollute the most and force users to pollute.

Cowbee ,

Capitalism drives pollution because the cheapest path to profit is also destructive towards the environment, and legislating against the profit motive is difficult because the state serves Capitalists.

Socialism fixes this by valuing needs and uses over profit.

The Soviet Union failed to properly implement environmental protections because climate science wasn't as developed and the Soviet Union was a developing country.

Cowbee ,

The USSR was a Worker State, it was Socialist. It was a highly flawed Socialist State in many ways, but it was still fundamentally Socialist.

On what grounds do you believe the USSR was not Socialist? We can certainly debate effectiveness, but I haven't seen a genuine Marxist argument for why the USSR wasn't Socialist.

Cowbee ,

It was a planned economy by the workers, expressed through the party. This is not bourgeois rule, that's vibes-based analysis. The Workers fundamentally had control, even if flawed.

It was corrupt, correct. That doesn't make it Capitalist.

Cowbee , (edited )

The state was run by the party, and the party was run and elected by the workers. The concept of a dominant political party is in line with Marxism, and is not indicative of Capitalism.

The workers elected the people making decisions. They did not vote on the decisions themselves, correct. The USSR was not a direct democracy. Direct Democracy is not a requiremeny for Socialism.

I think it would do you good to revisit Marxism and better understand what a Class actually is. Yes, the USSR was flawed, but it was also Socialism. The former Soviet States are now Capitalist at best, and fascist at worst, and function completely differently from when they were in the USSR.

Additionally, unless you're extremely old, you experienced the period of liberalization before collapse, not the peak of Socialism.

Cowbee ,

That goes directly against historical records.

  1. The party was of the workers and had open elections among the workers. Opposition parties were banned, but that does not mean it wasn't open.

  2. The Party was absolutely not Bourgeoisie. The fact that workers owned the state and the party ran the state does not mean that the Party were bourgeois. This is a ridiculous notion, akin to saying middle-management in a Capitalist enterprise are bourgeoisie because they run much of Capitalist companies.

  3. The party had the same class interests because there was no M-C-M' circuit by which state planners pocketed all of the profits. Production was directed by the state and flowed back to the workers in the form of free education, health care, pensions, and other worker-directed benefits. It was not used among competing Capitalists to gain monopoly and increase exploitation.

You should reread Marx, your understanding of class dynamics is highly flawed.

Cowbee ,

If you read the source you will see it continued, lol. Read the section by Pat Sloan.

Still more important, you have yet to explain why you believe the USSR was run by privatized corporations and Capitalists that competed in an open market producing commodities as the standard.

Cowbee ,

Hey, feel free to find scholarly sources, I'm down to read. Even you yourself said there were elections though.

You did say Capitalists were in power, you said the party was Bourgeoisie. That means they were Capitalists, which is obviously wrong and that's why I think you should read Marx.

Again, not saying the USSR was perfect. It was indeed corrupt and had multiple failures under its belt, but it was history's largest example of a Socialist society.

Cowbee ,

Read the Thurston quote, he directly states that while criticizing Stalin was a terrible idea, Workers had meaningful participation. Again, find sources, I am down to read, but right now it's your word vs historical evidence.

Bourgeoisie only refers to Capitalists in Marxian terms. The aristocracy was not Bourgeoisie, nor were slave owners. Read Marx, it's clear that you don't understand Class. If you refer to Monarchs as bourgeoisie then you've demonstrated that you haven't ever read Marx, because a huge amount of his writing is about how the Bourgeoisie differ from the aristocracy.

Even reading Principles of Communism by Engels could tell you that, and it's a pamphlet.

Cowbee ,

The usage of Bourgeoisie has not changed colloquially, that's a deliberate copout. If you are okay to continue misunderstanding Marxism then that's your choice, but please don't pretend to know what you're talking about as it relates to Marxism if you're going to actively reject reading Marx.

Cowbee ,

Misusing such a basic term such as Bourgeoisie reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of both Capitalism and Socialism, and makes everything else you say suspicious. You have repeatedly stated that Workers did not own the Means of Production without backing any of that up.

It's backed up by multiple sources, hence why I told you to read the Thurston quote, not just the Sloan quote. The USSR continued to have elections and the workers had control according to historical documents, none of the documents listed stated otherwise.

Please provide a source, all you've revealed thus far is a lack of understanding of Marxism on your part.

Cowbee ,

The dissent was about efficacy, not the actual presense of a democratic system. Reread the article, lol. Opposition parties were banned, not elections.

It does not agree with you, you misread the article. Both modern historians and opened soviet archives back me up. Since when is "Pat Sloan" and "Robert Thurston" a single historian?

You're deeply unserious.

Cowbee ,

I'm not purity testing, knowledge of the Bourgeoisie is the basic fundamental of Socialism. If you're rejecting reading and saying it doesn't matter, you probably are a bad leftist.

So now you agree with me, there were elections, and many sources support their efficacy.

You have no evidence about Pat Sloan, and given that his work was published in 1937, it's likely he was talking about the present day for him.

You are indeed deeply unserious.

Cowbee ,

You would have to prove the party and the workers entirely distinct.

Assuming I am not involved in local politics because I am more well-read than you is a silly ad hominem attack when logic is exhausted.

Cowbee ,

Who in the party represented another class? Workers, and who else? As the USSR liberalized towards the end, there were bourgeois elements added, but for most of the USSR's existence there was no other class.

Calling correcting your misconceptions "ad hominems" is goofy, lmao.

Cowbee ,

So it still had elections, and workers still participated, got it. Via having elections and participating in government, workers can direct production.

What royal family is as large as the USSR's Communist Party and allowed new membership?

Flawed Socialism is still Socialism.

Cowbee ,

You did not provide sources. There are facts that they existed, and differing opinions on the extent to which workers controlled the Means of Production. The elections did not disappear under Stalin, opposition parties were banned. This means it was flawed, but ultimately still existed, which is my point.

You cannot say that the Means of Production were state owned, and elections regularly practiced, and still say it was not Socialist. We are not arguing with whether or not the USSR was Socialist, but its effectiveness in carrying out the will of the Working Class. That much is obviously not 100%, the party was corrupt, you will not find pushback from me there, but it was Socialist.

You are arguing off of vibes.

The Communist Party was fundamentally not a new class. They did not own the Means of Production any more than the average worker, any worker could join, and the party was massive. A royal family would have engaged in feudalism, but that wasn't the case.

Cowbee ,

Your source backs me up, I read it.

Workers did have control. It was not ironclad, but there also wasn't a separate class, and the interests of the workers were advanced, such as free education, healthcare, etc.

You can repeat that you believe 7 to be equal to 0 all you want, repeating it won't make you correct.

You are arguing off of vibes.

Cowbee ,

I think you should look in the mirror before you attack me, lol

Cowbee ,

Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.

Cowbee ,

If you truly believe that systemic critique is based merely on what is legally permissable and not based on systemic pressures and forces, then you need to do some reading.

Cowbee ,

I repeat, If you truly believe that systemic critique is based merely on what is legally permissable and not based on systemic pressures and forces, then you need to do some reading.

Cowbee ,

I believe it stems from Liberalism. Class consciousness is on the rise, but newly-class aware liberals aren't yet aquainted with Leftist theory. These ideas are popular among liberals that are becoming more familiar with leftism but are disconnected from the centuries of leftist progress.

Cowbee ,

Liberals absolutely cannot accept criticism for their favorite strongman in a vacuum, it's absolutely painful to see.

Cowbee ,

The Steam Deck is just an absolute backlog slayer, in an increasingly busy life.

Cowbee ,

Nope, sure doesn't. It also doesn't mean that the metaphysical is the origin of that which shapes ideas. There are no ghosts out there giving you ideas.

Cowbee ,

I never said I was against dissent. I'd be in favor of trying to rehabilitate fascists and Capitalists, sure, but open discussion of ideas is important. You calling it "issues with my ideology" is a bit silly.

I am not sure I understand where you are going with your second paragraph.

Cowbee ,

I don't believe fascists or Capitalists should be allowed to violently attack people and attempt to gain power, that's silly.

As for expansionism, I am not sure why you are expecting me to defend that or apologize for it, I am not in control of the 20th century USSR or modern PRC.

Cowbee ,

So if we both know what I am advocating for, and what most people are advocating for, then why are you trying to pretend I agree with punishing dissent?

I agree that people have reason not to trust China or Russia. As much is valid, of course it is. I disagree that Marxists are somehow more dangerous to people than Capitalists.

I have been engaging exclusively in good-faith, the fact that this entire convo has been you putting words in my mouth means you're more likely to be bad faith. I still engage because I value constructive conversation, but if you aren't interested and are trying to disengage then there's no point.

Cowbee ,

I lump together classes with their class interests. Nuance exists among individuals, but not among the average. If a Capitalist violently attacks others, they should be rehabilitated.

Lemmy.ml is explicitly a FOSS and Privacy instance. I do not have a Lemmygrad.ml account, which is explicitly Marxist-Leninist. I am a Marxist. I defend Marxism.

What did I ignore? What did I deflect?

Either way, I would say without analyzing trajectories and whys behind movements, you're doomed to repeat their failures and cannot be counted on to replicate success. You ought to mechanically and logically explain systemic failures and systemic victories.

If we strictly go off of track record snapshots devoid of any context, then nothing is good, and nothing can be done to improve, as Anarchism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, all have failed to exist perfectly. If we can learn, however, then we can move on.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •