I was a far-right lunatic until about 2009, when I started turning left. I have read many (center-)leftist articles from Jacobin, Common Dreams, The Guardian, and, from Brazil, Carta Capital and IHU (Catholic liberation theology).
Lemmy (despite my suboptimal instance) and communist friends got me interested in actual Marxism, but I have not yet really studied it. So please recommend:
- The best Marxist Lemmy instance for my background.
- Marxist books or videos in approximate reading/watching order. For the next many months (I suspect six months) I will have very little time, though.
Bonus:
- reasonable tolerance of Catholic faith and individual morality
- contextualized on Brazil, Cuba, broader Latin America or China
Background: Brazilian Catholic male autistic ADHD IT analyst with an electronic engineering degree and MsC in computer science. I have a son with my wife. I highly value privacy and software freedom. I read English well, but Spanish quite poorly. Native Portuguese speaker.
EDIT: I got a lemmygrad account. I am still processing the other recommendations.
For what it’s worth, I used to be an Anarchist, so it’s easier for me to see why Anarchists think the way they do and point out misconceptions about Marxism I had before really diving into theory. I hope you’ll see that this is out of a place of trying to correct misconceptions, and not some smug “I’ve read more than you so my power level is higher” nonsense. Additionally, the jab at MLs is unnecessary in my opinion, and inaccurate.
First, Communism. Marxists and Anarchists have a fundamentally different view of what the State is, and therefore what Communism looks like. For Marxists, the State is an instrument of class oppression, while for Anarchists its a monopoly on violence and a tool of hierarchy. The conclusions are that Marxists seek a global Socialist republic with full public ownership and central planning, and Anarchists seek a horizontal, decentralized network of communes. This fundamental difference in class analysis drives the real material differences between Marxism and Anarchism, so when you say we want the same thing, that’s not accurate, and makes Marxism seem nonsensical (why would a system trying to reach horizontal communes work through central planning and public ownership if only to dissolve itself later). If you have an inaccurate view of Marxism, Anarchism seems like a much better way to reach what this faux-Marxism seeks, but that’s all it is, faux-Marxism.
Furthermore, the Marxist argument against such a commune-focused system is that such a system would have fundamental inequality in rates of progression, which would work to reintroduce Private Property and thus Capitalism over time (elaborated on in Anti-Duhring).
For your second point, the role of a Party and its position within a society. This is… confused on your part. A party can be better described as “top-down, from the bottom-up.” When you say that the party is “master,” this is just wrong. Parties rely on democratic infrastructure, like Democratic Centralism, and an adherance to the Mass Line. Much of org theory is based on effectiveness and maintaining connection to the masses, simplifying it as an “exploitative master” is false thinking.
The fact that you concede that some hierarchy is necessary (say, the QA worker should be able to halt production and stop unqualified products from shipping even against democratic consensus) means you can understand how direction can be necessary. A QA worker informing others that the products are dangerous, without authority, can be ignored entirely, you assume that everyone without fail will “do the right thing.” Moreover, by stating that this hierarchy must be accountable from the bottom-up, you agree with Marxist-Leninists. I think if you read The State and Revolution, you’d fundamentally agree with Lenin the whole way through. The major difference is largely language. To quote Engels,
The author has clear intent to discredit Engels, not to discern if he may have a point or not, leading to absurdity like the breathing comparison. You don’t need a manager or director to tell you to breathe, but you need one to tell you that the latent chemicals within the products you are producing are toxic, as found by the QA worker, and production and shipping are to cease immediately, and to deny the necessity of this authority is to place the trust and safety of humanity purely in the good will of unaccountable individuals.
Overall, I hope you can walk away with a bit of a better understanding of what Marxists even want in the first place. I’d ask you how Anarchists would produce a smartphone, and how you think Marxists would produce a smartphone, and to see where the legitimate differences lie, not just language.
Thank you for the sincere response. Your knowledge of ML and anarchist thought is appreciated. You make some great points. Specifically the acknowledgment that communism is different for ML’s and anarchist. I appreciate your insight.
I will begin with the production of a smartphone. The smartphone, in its current form, is an innovation of capitalism. We can both conceive a ML or anarchist smartphone. Given I am an engineer, I will speak to the engineering process. I live under capitalism, so can provide non-idealist insight there. I will follow that with ML and then anarchist production.
Regardless of political system the engineers get an initial set of requirements from somewhere. The initial requirements inform the engineers regarding what needs to be done. Prototypes are created. Tests verify met requirements. Shortening the user feedback loop allows better iterations since the initial requirements likely do not match end product requirements.
Under capitalism, the capitalist has minions that decide what needs to be built based on the profit motive. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager, the capitalist and consumers. The capitalist has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of the capitalist no longer work as an engineer.
Under Marxist-Leninism, party leadership decides what to needs to be built based on information from their subordinates. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager and party leadership. Party leadership has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of party leadership no longer work as an engineer.
Under anarchism, the commune decides what needs to be built based on information from consensus. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from the community. The community sways the iteration process since engineers that fail to move their community forward no longer work as engineers.
Perhaps my arguments are misconceptions. My experience with engineering has been shortening the iteration time by letting the user sway requirements, without a master with outsized power, allows products to meet the needs of the user. Current engineering practices are dominated by capitalist. The profit motive allegedly informs their decisions, but Smith’s “invisible hand” is about as magic as Engel’s “withering away of the state”. A world where ML or anarchist engineering practices, not influenced by the profit motive or capitalist, would be riveting.
Outside of engineering, we have raw materials, transportation, manufacturing and distribution. I know less about these areas since I do not work in them.
If I believe what I have read, raw materials like cobalt are being mined for dominating hierarchies like corporations by independent contractors in exploited countries.
Transportation is being done by independent contractors on behalf of dominating hierarchies. Transport of raw materials seems decentralized. I am confounded why transport differs from distribution in terms of centralization under capitalism.
Manufacturing is capital intensive and tends to be centralized for complex production since not everyone has a clean room at home. Less complex production seems to follow the independent contractor model since most people can sew. I imagine this is a difference in the cost of capital.
Distribution is mostly centralized and seems capital intensive with fleet maintenance. I know there have been attempts to decentralize distribution similar to how Uber decentralized taxi services.
In closing, I would like to see engineering that benefits communities. I would like to see sharing of ideas and collaboration between communes. The assumption is that humans are social and helpful. When we assume humans are selfish and not social, then individual autonomy should be squashed by hierarchical authority.
I think there was a misconception. The QA worker can say things are bad. The other workers would then build consensus on next steps. The QA worker still needs to build consensus with relevant people, but can act if immediate action is required. Immediate mitigating action like stopping someone from walking into a busy street is a required imposition of hierarchy.
Wow, that was long. I probably have many misconceptions of ML ideas.
How do you feel about the name State Capitalism? I implied it in the replacement of capitalist with party leadership.
How do ensure those with “power over” subordinates do not abuse their subordinates “power to” do something? Under anarchism, the QA worker may be unreliable and the community can build consensus to not listen to concerns.
How is ML different from other domination heirarchies like feudalism, oligarchy and monarchy? My understanding is Stalin was God-King due to the heirarchy he commanded as General Secretary. Benevolent, omnipotent kings are a great form of government until you get a Nero.
How can we prevent Great Leap Forward’s fulfillment of the Peter Principle, where individuals in heirarchies rise to the level of their incompetence? This is not unique to ML. Heirarchies can’t promote productive workers. Nothing would get done.
I will have to re-read Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. I ended up engaging with Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon and Goldman more than Lenin or Mao. My readings may have been cursory.
Alright, thanks for responding! There are a bunch of misconceptions here, like I thought there would be, but I assume you already knew that due to your admission as such, and the purpose is to rectify those.
First, I won’t really correct your Capitalist explanation, we both are familiar with Capitalism enough to know what it looks like.
Second, Marxism-Leninism. In all AES countries, it is not “party leadership” that dictates production, just like Joe Biden doesn’t do any of the planning involved with the Post Office. “Party Leadership” tends to deal with overarching issues, foreign policy, and more. Industrial planning is done by Economic Planners, much like how you can get a job as a City Planner or Civil Engineer in the US. Engineers are subservient to their managers, much like in Capitalism, only the goal isn’t profit but fulfillment of Use-Value. The importance of this is that administrative roles are a necessity for large, mass-scale complex production.
The education of the Engineer was provided by the government, with standards set in place at the government level by the Education Administration (or equivalent government body). These don’t need to be party members, just regular people. The purpose of the party is to be made up of the most politically educated of the working class, unlike in Capitalism where party members are subservient to Capital. The Party is made up of the working class and is voluntary to join, and can purge opportunists and spies who seek to sabotage the Socialist system.
In Anarchism, I believe you’re assuming too many things. Who decides “consensus?” Is every commodity at the whim of direct vote? Or do you have elected delegates, trusted to handle economic planning? If the former, how would we trust these people to not be under-planning or over-planning, if the latter, what’s the difference from the government in Marxism-Leninism beyond name? Furthermore, where do educational standards come from for Engineers? Best practice? Is everything equally decided by everyone? If you don’t formalize a body to exert some kind of authority to prevent malpractice, then you have malpractice. If you do, you agree with the Marxist-Leninists, your only objection being labeling this formalized group a “party” rather than a “committee,” as though language changes form.
For the QA worker to have any genuine authority, it needs to be backed, and this backing cannot be purely voluntary or else it isn’t actually authority, and can be ignored freely. Moreover, if you are talking smartphones, such a production process can involve many thousands of people, does everyone need to be involved over every QA issue, or do we make the concession that production would grind to a halt in a day if we did that and instead administration should be embraced?
Quick diversion to the Withering of the State: it isn’t magic at all, rather, for Marxists the State is the instruments within government that uphold class distinctions, like Private Property. Upon making all property Public, there are no classes, so there isn’t a need for private property rigjts, hence the “withering away.” Government and administration remain, and things like the police change more to be social workers and armies are superfluous as Communism is global. That’s the “withering away” of the State for Marxists.
Alright, onto your questions.
“State Capitalism” can best be used to describe the NEP, not Socialism in general. Parties are not classes, and central planning isn’t done for the profit of party members. This is a confused understanding of Marxism.
Democratic Centralism and the Mass Line are core concepts to ML structure, along with Recall Elections in the case of removing opportunists.
Socialism is fundamentally different from feudalism and Capitalism because the basis is on a fully Publicly Owned economy. Just like managers are not a separate class, neither are administrators and officials, production doesn’t all funnel into their pockets but is directed for the fulfilment of the needs of society. There’s a lot of literature on the economies of AES countries I can link if you want. These aren’t “benevolent kings,” they can be opposed (and frequently were).
As for Stalin, there’s historical record of him attempting to resign no fewer than 4 times, he wasn’t unopposable and wasn’t a God-King. He certainly wasn’t a perfect man either, but he was elected and frequently opposed through the institutions of the Soviet Union.
Does that answer your questions?