That’s not really accurate to what MLs argue, they believe that you can’t have Communism without having built it up via a Socialist state beforehand. They still strongly support worker ownership and oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, which is my point, because the foundational beliefs are good, they can be reasoned with.
The Proletariat in general can be reasoned with, that’s the entire purpose of class consciousness. Reactionaries found in the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie proper are not capable of truly being reasoned with at a wide level, but fellow proletarians can be.
Collective ownership of the Means of Production via a Worker state is in fact Socialism, and not Capitalism. If you eliminate the bourgeoisie, it is no longer Capitalism. It isn’t Anarchism either, but it’s still leftist in structure.
Lenin opposed the Worker councils and replaced them with a Union system. This is not the same as an outright replacement of a Socialist system for a Capitalist one, but a decentralized Socialist system for a more centralized Socialist system. This is still leftist, even if it’s more centralized. You disagree with it on the basis of centralization, not on whether or not it’s leftist.
As for Imperialism, Lemmygrad has a wiki where they go over why they don’t believe the current Russian Federation meets Lenin’s definition of Imperialism. I agree that it doesn’t meet Lenin’s definition, but I disagree with them that this justifies critically supporting Russia against NATO, which is Imperialist according to Lenin’s definitions. This, however, is a take based on Lenin’s analysis and a framework to oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, and can be argued against based on effectiveness, unlike fascists that enjoy Imperialism being Imperialism like the GOP.
I’d say they are in fact honest, and can be reasoned with. If you attempt to understand their views, you can more effectively take down some of their worse takes, like on Russia.
I disagree that a worker state is a thing that can exist at the scale envisioned by MLs. The defining feature of capitalism is the prevalence of the employer-employee relationship, which the USSR preserved; the state employed the workers who were alienated from their labor and had little say in the operations of their workplace. That’s not socialism.
That’s a more grounded take, but not one that can be argued against a right winger. Ultimately, there is an undeniable difference between the USSR and Capitalism: the Workers made up the state, and as such directed the Means of Production, rather than a bourgeois class. This makes it Socialist, even if you disagree with its effectiveness at realizing the ideals of leftism.
That’s what I’m getting at, you believe that Anarchism (presumably) or some other more decentralized form of Socialism is the best way at achieving the ideals of leftism, but you’re conflating that with anything less than that not being Socialist at all. That’s an incorrect analysis, in my opinion.
That’s not really accurate to what MLs argue, they believe that you can’t have Communism without having built it up via a Socialist state beforehand. They still strongly support worker ownership and oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, which is my point, because the foundational beliefs are good, they can be reasoned with.
The Proletariat in general can be reasoned with, that’s the entire purpose of class consciousness. Reactionaries found in the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie proper are not capable of truly being reasoned with at a wide level, but fellow proletarians can be.
The thing that MLs consider a “socialist state” is capitalism where the state is a universal employer, which is decidedly not socialism.
Lenin destroyed the worker’s councils, and I’ve met multiple MLs who consider co-ops to be a bourgeois institution in disguise.
That’s a common story, and also an outright lie. See: literally every time they defend Russian imperialism.
Only if they’re honest in their delusions, which most of them aren’t.
Collective ownership of the Means of Production via a Worker state is in fact Socialism, and not Capitalism. If you eliminate the bourgeoisie, it is no longer Capitalism. It isn’t Anarchism either, but it’s still leftist in structure.
Lenin opposed the Worker councils and replaced them with a Union system. This is not the same as an outright replacement of a Socialist system for a Capitalist one, but a decentralized Socialist system for a more centralized Socialist system. This is still leftist, even if it’s more centralized. You disagree with it on the basis of centralization, not on whether or not it’s leftist.
As for Imperialism, Lemmygrad has a wiki where they go over why they don’t believe the current Russian Federation meets Lenin’s definition of Imperialism. I agree that it doesn’t meet Lenin’s definition, but I disagree with them that this justifies critically supporting Russia against NATO, which is Imperialist according to Lenin’s definitions. This, however, is a take based on Lenin’s analysis and a framework to oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, and can be argued against based on effectiveness, unlike fascists that enjoy Imperialism being Imperialism like the GOP.
I’d say they are in fact honest, and can be reasoned with. If you attempt to understand their views, you can more effectively take down some of their worse takes, like on Russia.
I disagree that a worker state is a thing that can exist at the scale envisioned by MLs. The defining feature of capitalism is the prevalence of the employer-employee relationship, which the USSR preserved; the state employed the workers who were alienated from their labor and had little say in the operations of their workplace. That’s not socialism.
That’s a more grounded take, but not one that can be argued against a right winger. Ultimately, there is an undeniable difference between the USSR and Capitalism: the Workers made up the state, and as such directed the Means of Production, rather than a bourgeois class. This makes it Socialist, even if you disagree with its effectiveness at realizing the ideals of leftism.
That’s what I’m getting at, you believe that Anarchism (presumably) or some other more decentralized form of Socialism is the best way at achieving the ideals of leftism, but you’re conflating that with anything less than that not being Socialist at all. That’s an incorrect analysis, in my opinion.