I have a Marxist PoV, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, but that isn't why liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is right-wing because it is based on private property rights as the centerpoint, and that is the status quo. Maintaining the current status quo is a right-wing, conservative point of view, while the revolutionary, progressive point of view is in socialized ownership.
The definitions you keep linking are from liberal organizations that are benefited by constraining the window of political economic discussion to the confines of capitalist viewpoints. Often, they rely on the Overton Window, which is about what is considered more progressive or reactionary in a given window by the median opinion, ie if you have 100 people in a room, 3 are communists, 67 are bog-standard liberals, and 30 are conservative liberals, then by the Overton Window, you'd have 50 on the left and 50 on the right, with most liberals on the left. However, this erases the actually increasing momentum for socialism, and hides the fact that 97 people in the room are for the current system plus tweaks, and only 3 are for radical change.
The origin of the terms "left" began in France, when capitalism and liberalism were revolutionary, and monarchism was the status quo. We are far beyond the time when liberalism is capable of being seen as revolutionary, however, most of the world is dominated by private property. It is now socialism that is revolutionary, and it has been so for centuries.
I've provided a more nuanced, thorough, and complete analysis than you have, which is why other users are suggesting you listen to me. I can recommend some good works on political economic theory, if you'd like. There's a difference between nuance, and vibes, and you've relied heavily on vibes over nuance.
Deeply unserious managers of empire continue to self-cannibalize their own productivity in an effort to go even more all-in on financial capital, all while the global south is doing its best to pivot towards more favorable relations with countries like China. When the US Empire runs out of countries to exploit, and financial capital ceases to be profitable, it will have no developed industrial base nor a strong scientifically trained worker base to pull itself back up. The US is cooked, this is just speedrunning the demise of the empire in a faster and harder fashion.
The good news is that the worse this gets, the more favorable the conditions for organizing become, and the more vulnerable to revolution the state becomes. We can legitimately take advantage of this, and gain mastery over capital, rather than the inverse. We can re-industrialize, become socialist, and begin the long and difficult but necessary path towards legitimate progress. It won't be easy, but it will be doable.
I strongly disageee. Historical experience of communists and socialists proves that hiding your actual views is a way to earn deep distrust from the people. Honesty, and a focus on the Mass Line, are what has brought the most unity and most success.
Bernie calling the GOP "Stalinist" is deeply unserious behavior, and Bernie's role has been historically to serve as a sheepdog for the DNC. He opposes the DNC like Chomsky opposes the US, loud critique until it comes time to toe the party line. Correctly pointing out that Bernie calling the GOP "Stalinist" is absurd is not "parroting Russian propaganda."
Marxists having a problem with Bernie acting as a sheepdog for the DNC isn't a good thing for Bernie. Further, this isn't "RT propaganda," it's a clip of Bernie himself. Are you saying Bernie is RT propaganda, or quoting him is the propaganda?
I find the easiest way to explain it is that public property should be the principle aspect of the economy, rather than private. Labor should be the focus, not ownership, and this helps humanity chart its course rather than guessing at what is most profitable for the few.
I personally love reading articles on Red Sails and ProleWiki. There's always more to learn about Marxism-Leninism, and these sites are treasure troves.
Labor unions are promoted and are permissible, just as long as they don't work against the socialist system. It isn't a moral failing to value unity, especially when disunity is what has been historically used by the west to topple governments it doesn't like. Further, again, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their system, and a similar quantity believe it to be genuinely democratic.
I agree that Mamdani is a positive candidate, and the fact that he beat Cuomo in the primary is a massive indicator of the real opinions held by the working class. I elaborated more elsewhere on why I support Mamdani. I don't really disagree with anything you've said here, my overall point is that Mamdani isn't a substitute for revolution and it's important to keep that in mind while we celebrate openly anti-Zionist, pro-socialist victories over establishment ghouls.
Democratic Centralism is the result of communist parties figuring out what works best through practice. It's at the core of the fast response times, stability, and popular support of socialist systems. Each point is developed and proven in importance through practice.
Point 3 is just basic democracy. If a group comes to a vote, what's the point if the minority just refuses to follow? Unity in action is the strength of the working class, it's what turns the sheer numbers into a mighty sword to fight the bourgeoisie, without unity you have a directionless and mushy form. Further, you can have revotes on decisions if necessary down the line.
Point 4 is not as scary as you think. Recall elections are a core aspect of the electoral system in demcent countries and parties if needed. The lower rungs get to elect the higher rungs, the top is only there because they have won elections, and if they lose the trust of the people they can be ousted.
As for factionalism, it's a recipe for instability and this is where capitalism thrives. A competent, unified, democratic body is far superior than competing private interests at achieving the goals of the people. It's part of why China's government, as an example, has over 90% approval rates, while the US as a two-party system has less than 50% approval rates consistently. Having a single party is not anti-democratic, it means everyone is on the same team and is willing to work together.
Overall, I think you need to actually see the success of demcent orgs like PSL vs how a party like the DSA functions. PSL, with fewer party members, gets pound for pound more done. The DSA is highly divided, its biggest strength is its size, but it can't weild it properly. Meanwhile, PSL is growing rapidly, and is at the forefront of the No Kings and pro-Palestinian protest movements in the US.
Honestly, I see a lot of overlap between Maoism and anarchism, so that's not that big of a stretch if you ask me. I also am not opposed to hierarchy or government, humanity's strengths lie in its ability to organize, and the progressive elements of capitalism like the socialization of production should be mastered so that we can have a more just, scientifically driven society based on common ownership and planning.
As far as the here and now, I think the PRC is doing it best, and is charting that course at the forefront. It has a long way to go before we can reach communism, but the path forward already exists.
China is still here, and still socialist, and it isn't leaving. This is because of Democratic Centralism, a fast and cohesive way to adapt to changing conditions while retaining democratic input. For less urgent decisions, the PRC has slower, more comprehensive, bottom-up systems, while it focuses more on a top-down approach for system-wide changes and direction. It's kinda like "top down, from the bottom up."
I agree with pragmatism over idealism, that's why I'm a communist and push for socialism. Socialism is immensely practical.
Wage labor itself is founded on unpaid surplus labor with the express purpose of valorizing capital. The increased intensity never works its way to your pockets.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
I have a Marxist PoV, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, but that isn't why liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is right-wing because it is based on private property rights as the centerpoint, and that is the status quo. Maintaining the current status quo is a right-wing, conservative point of view, while the revolutionary, progressive point of view is in socialized ownership.
The definitions you keep linking are from liberal organizations that are benefited by constraining the window of political economic discussion to the confines of capitalist viewpoints. Often, they rely on the Overton Window, which is about what is considered more progressive or reactionary in a given window by the median opinion, ie if you have 100 people in a room, 3 are communists, 67 are bog-standard liberals, and 30 are conservative liberals, then by the Overton Window, you'd have 50 on the left and 50 on the right, with most liberals on the left. However, this erases the actually increasing momentum for socialism, and hides the fact that 97 people in the room are for the current system plus tweaks, and only 3 are for radical change.
The origin of the terms "left" began in France, when capitalism and liberalism were revolutionary, and monarchism was the status quo. We are far beyond the time when liberalism is capable of being seen as revolutionary, however, most of the world is dominated by private property. It is now socialism that is revolutionary, and it has been so for centuries.
I've provided a more nuanced, thorough, and complete analysis than you have, which is why other users are suggesting you listen to me. I can recommend some good works on political economic theory, if you'd like. There's a difference between nuance, and vibes, and you've relied heavily on vibes over nuance.