Maoist Rebel News Does Not Understand Marx

[@lesliefluette1784]

This was such a good vid, I’ve been wondering about this distinction for a while now and so appreciate this very thorough breakdown!

[@anarchozoe]

Glad you found it helpful

[@batko6362]

How people still take Jason seriously is truly a wonder to behold.

[@Aconitum_napellus]

The fact people take Sargon seriously is hilarious and perplexing.

[@Captain_Wet_Beard]

Jason's response was a recipe for tiki masala. It wasn't even authentic, it was a recipe for some revisionist tiki masala.

[@begonesoon5864]

How people still take anarchists seriously is truly...wait no one takes anarchists seriously.

[@chayabat-tzvi1215]

+Lord Thanatos It's also not kosher - you don't mix the milk of intellect with a meathead of furious insults.

[@sebastiancespedes5842]

"tfw how can anybody still listen to that guy after all the maymays we made about him"

[@cassiedevereaux-smith3890]

I don't know who this guy is but just looking at the picture, he looks like someone trying much too hard. I'm reminded of the old Texas idiom "all hat, no cattle".

[@commwave5820]

Jason is gonna be soooo mad when he hears about this video. He's probably going to accuse you of utopian talk by directly quoting marx.

[@anarchozoe]

I'm expecting him to try and act like this is just semantics and so completely miss the point.

[@RadicalReviewer]

lol you folks expected too much, his response is pathetic, hostile, backbiting and divisive.

[@paracovo]

​@@HoorizonSniping As far as I understand, the fact that the system that appears under the DotP does not entail a distinct mode of production in itself. There is Capitalism, and there is Communism, and the DotP is part of Communism in the fact that it's part of its Becoming, when it isn't an organic system yet. Why Socialism not being its own distinct mode of production is important should be self-evident, I think, considering how central to DiaMat and its analysis of society the mode of production is.

[@dalegribble4308]

Cal Devans The Cadre wow you’re another idiot larper of you think there aren’t Marxist anarchists

[@prierepanda2186]

@Cal Devans The Cadre Why read and reflect on the thought of someone if you do not 100% agree with him, amaright ?

[@elliswrong]

Jason Unruhe isn't just a reactionary toolbag, he's an entire home depot.

[@Goldenhawk0]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[@RottingintheMidwest]

That isn't fair to Home Depot.

[@elliswrong]

Not at all what I was going for and irrelevant to him being a piece of shit.

[@Painocus]

Nayako Sadashi: For one, supporting Turkish imperialism in Syria just because he hates anarchists is quite reactionary.

[@elliswrong]

This is utterly baffling. If you don't see it, I don't know what to say..

[@jareddaigre4550]

someone doesnt understand marx? lol water is wet

[@user-or7mh5we2k]

But water isn't wet.

[@-arche-7926]

What does "lol" mean?

[@staskrul5531]

@@-arche-7926 let's overthrow liberalism

[@-arche-7926]

@@staskrul5531 Im with you there!

[@ThisIsANameBruh]

@@user-or7mh5we2k maybe not on its own but if you pour some liquid on it with lesser density then water wll be wet as its surface will be saturated by another liquid (the definition of wet).

[@6dhypercube740]

This makes so much more sense than the explanations of Marxism I've read/heard previously.

[@Alex-fu3mi]

Would it be incorrect to say the goal of the anarchist is to treat *the here and now* as a sort of transitionary period? From my understanding of anarchism (which could be completely incorrect), the goal is to transition immediately from capitalism to communism, but anarchists differ on their methods of doing so. That being said, anarchism is all about direct action, prefigurative politics, and anti-armchairism. Creating the world we want in the here and now in whatever ways we can, and "educating, agitating, and organizing" in order to acquaint people with and practice anarchist ideas today. Would it be wrong to say that the anarchist treats today as the transitionary period? That in order to truly have a classless, stateless, moneyless society, anarchists try to create a wanting for that in the hearts of the people here and now, so it can be realized immediately after capitalism? Could be talking out my ass - just want some clarification here.

[@user-vs6oe8fl3m]

Trying to change the world by without changing the world is idealism, isn't it?

[@patriciapandacoon7162]

@Zarathustra it's almost like the goal is to have no nation-states or something

[@Liliquan]

You’re quite right. Anarchism focuses on prefigurative politics in the sense that there are ideas about what a better society would look like but the means to get there are done immediately. There is no singular grand revolution, there are multitudes of minor revolutions. Doing anarchism means working not with capitalism but instead under its nose. Undermining it from the ground up whilst creating the infrastructure necessary for its replacement.

[@Alex-fu3mi]

@Gerr Gerring supposed to be, but then you see how many Trotskyist newspapers there are or “anarchist communes” (where it’s just a lifestylist circlejerk) and you see there are some forms of “activism” that are pretty damn ineffective.

[@AdamRainStopper]

Wait, so red and black mohawks are for Maoists now? What. The. FUCK!?!?!?!?

[@Lutyrannus]

This is by far the best video on this subject. Thank you.

[@rhods23]

You make Marx seem so clear and elegant (it's very different when I try reading him lol)

[@atortarr]

Rhods_ I have found that, when reading Capital Vol 1, it is WAY easier to understand if i read it with someone else. Read a few sentences or paragraphs, then stop and discuss, sharing ideas and breaking down various words and concepts.

[@anarchozoe]

It's different when I read him too. Some passages are just so dense and you really have to plow through it.

[@hamishfatcat3385]

@@bluewater454 one does not simply implement marxisim. Marxisim is a complex study of the societal condition through the lense of class struggle

[@robertstan298]

@@atortarr Me too.

[@robertstan298]

@@bluewater454 Yes, please go on and preach about how you don't understand what a social revolution is. Maybe touch on the horrors of the status quo too? Oh no, wait, that would completely undermine your bad faith "arguments" against people who don't share your ignorant outlook.

[@maat-erovermind5962]

hello, I am a Marxist-Leninist and I quite like your video's and I'm not sectarian against anarchists that don't bash us. I will state a few things, firstly this topic is always awful because it skips semantics and I know this myself because I've spent a considerable amount of time debating left-coms. When we say socialism, we mean this lower phase of communism Marx speaks of in critique of the Gotha program which is why we even site this work so often Jason is not wrong IMO but his failure is he doesn't explain to Xexizy or the crowd what we mean by socialism which we get from Lenin in ’State and Revolution’ and he fails because we assume everyone uses this definition now a days. Jason is not good at debates Xexizy here also fails whether deliberate or not is irrelevant because he clings to the fact Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. We know this but we particularly use socialism to define the transitional phase and widely this definition is more accepted now since Lenin popularized it We are talking about this lower phase not about communism You are correct that the socialist mode of production can exist without a state. We may defeat the use of the state before a post scarcity economy exists where "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" may exist (the latter being the economic principle of communism) Unfortunately you have misunderstood our position. I recommend you read state and revolution by Lenin instead of some guy who only cites Marx and criticizes Lenin without even going into it. I didn't even disagree with anything that work said except the conclusion Semantics have to be established soon to get rid of all this confusion. I'm afraid you got caught in the middle because neither Xexizy nor Jason did a good job edit: I know you responded to the Finnish Bolshevik on anarchism but he made a good video debunking Xexizy. Keep in mind though that when FinnBol talks about socialism he's referring to lower phase of communism

[@anarchozoe]

I know Lenin made the distinction between socialism and communism in state and revolution. Michael Lebowitz developed the argument which this video is a summary of in response to Lenin's misreading of Marx. I just decided to use Jason's error as the framework within which to explain Lebowitz's ideas.

[@georgeallder4802]

Good video, nice summary of Marx's theories of the shifts between modes of production. I don't want to tell you what to make videos about but I do prefer when you talk about Anarchist theory. There's lots of discussion of Marx and while I see the value in debunking misconceptions common in leftist youtubers I feel that classical and contemporary anarchist theory is left in obscurity far too much.

[@anarchozoe]

There are a bunch of videos I have planned going over classical anarchist theory. I just like to talk about other stuff cause just doing videos on anarchism gets monotonous when you're PhD is on it. Nice to take a break

[@6iaZkMagW7EFs]

I like the idea that abstract concepts are composed of their relations. I think of physics somewhat in that way; a physical object or phenomenon is defined through how it interacts with others, not really "existing" in its own.

[@lizucavictoria]

Unruhe seems like a parody most of the time. muke is a well meaning person, but he gets lost and doesn't seem to really get what he's talking about at times. the debate was really fun to watch though.

[@maxrobison223]

i like muke quite a bit, and he was a big part of me turning to socialism, even if i ultimately turned in a more anarchist direction. he might not be a theory god, but he seems like a nice fellow and he's doing a lot of good for socialism in the public eye.

[@lizucavictoria]

M. Joseph You're right.

[@Psychedlia98]

I love your ashido pfp

[@8DX]

Wow, thanks, that actually a very succinct response clears all the misunderstandings up! Thank you and how very nice of you to put the effort into this. =8)-DX

[@anarchozoe]

Glad you found it helpful and informative

[@anacondadope550]

More like moist rebel news 💧💧

[@malis9045]

I mean even in the holy tankie bible, State and Revolution, Lenin qotes Marx in an entire chapter, about the difference of the lower phase(Socialism) and higher phase of Communism

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

I know Im late but... True as that is the distinction between Socialism and Communism as states of society is more Fleshed out by Engels and Lenin then it is by Marx.

[@wolfeOnline1882]

was the dictatorship of the prole not a means of achieving lower phase communism rather than being included in it?

[@Painocus]

It's a bit unclear in Marx alone if they are overlapping categories, different categories, or different names for the same thing, as he doesn't talk about the two in the same place or context. Basically, in some places he says that the first phase of communism "just as it emerges from capitalist society" will have 1:1 labour-compensation (which he identifies as a product of left-over bourgeoisie elements) while higher phase communism will have "to each according to his need". While in other places he states that a DoP is the form a state must take in the transition from capitalism to communism, but he also states that the DoP is the "transformation [the state will] undergo in communist society". And he doesn't, as far as I can remember, specify when in relation to this communism will become stateless. As "Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another" it might be understood that the DoP only exist as long as the proletarian rule needs to defend it's mode of production from bourgeois elements, which are also the thing that separates first phase communism from higher phase communism. And as such the two (DoP and 1st phase communism) might be argued to be the same, or at-least, largely overlapping categories. On the other hand it might be that these bourgeois economic elements exist without the bourgeois class, and that the DoP only exist in-so-far as the bourgeois class does, not just any remains of the capitalist mode of production. Now even if assuming this last interpretation it is still not made clear whether the DoP still is an early part of the first phase of communism or separate from it. Ultimately I think trying to define these things as very strict and distinct periods of development is not what Marx really had in mind here, and somewhat goes against his understanding of dialectics. In both cases I think Marx's idea is ultimately just that when communism is starting to be implemented it will initially contain elements of society that is still shaped by the way thing is done under the capitalist mode of production, but that these elements will die out and be replaced by communism's own societal relations. Like how capitalism grew gradually more distinct from feudalism.

[@gekkobear1650]

@@Painocus I want to know when and why Lenin took the leap of using this analysis of lower communism to mean strictly that the revolution should immediately expropriate (nationalize) the means of production but leave wage labor and the commodity form intact. Kropotkin outline beautifully how this is a contradiction and seriously limits the possibilities of reorganization to meet everyone's needs immediately. I simply do not understand what Lenin's reasons are other than he simply does not trust the working class at all and liked power

[@enfercesttout]

communism and socialism are not same things in a modern context. And anarchy isn't same with those two. that wasn't always the case.

[@Goldenhawk0]

I think she knows, but she was addressing the Marxist idea of socialism. Clearly Anarchism has it's own version of socialism that is distinct but overlaps with the Marxist definitions.

[@pulpreservoir3894]

15:52 Deleuze smiles

[@LulaTheStampede]

its a shame it took me so long to find your channel, I'm going to be binging all your vids over the next couple months.

[@Goldenhawk0]

I haven't watched the video yet, I'm just commenting to say the way you say Muke is adorable.

[@TockTockTock]

Are you familiar with Proudhon's theory of immanence?

[@anarchozoe]

No

[@pachho808]

Jackie, you gonna explain?

[@noahnoah2747]

@@pachho808 I don't think they were familiar with it I think they were hoping for an explainer lmao bc why wouldn't they explain it that makes no sense

[@noahnoah2747]

Like not many people even anarchists spend much time reading about Proudhon really anyways but if you really want to hang onto Proudhon you should be able to explain yourself.

[@RudeFoxALTON]

While it is a pretty good video has and has interesting stuff, I can't help but say the presentation reminded me heavily of lecture videos I slept through in college, lol.

[@hamishfatcat3385]

I would love anarocopac to be my college lecturer rather than some spitefull bonebag prof

[@nakhashph]

Came for tankie tears, was not disappointed

[@AnarchoTak]

Frank Smith bigots, ancaps, conservatives, liberals, faccists are all retards to me

[@anarchozoe]

@TakeoTheBandit Can you not call people retards. Might wanna think about how using this term as an insult has certain ableist implications.

[@brigadiergeneralstrike3536]

Use 'idiots' or 'morons' instead, they are universally usable without being ableist.

[@badsocks756]

Brigadier General Strike Even "stupid", although *potentially* ableist, at the very least has connotations that also go beyond that, describing things which are silly, ridiculous, etc.

[@johnmccrae2932]

@@bing4126 Whilst this is certainly true to some extent, for every anarchist calling an ML "tankie" there is an ML calling an anarchist "anarkiddy". Everyone is at fault to some extent, and the only way to resolve this is for us all to acknowledge that disagreeing with someone on revolutionary praxis doesn't make them a bad person. People will always be arriving at different conclusions about tactics based on their own philosophy and how they have come across ideas, and that's fine.

[@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031]

The transition in anarchism is the process of social evolution triggered by the prefiguration of the new society within the old one, that is, the practice of anarchist principles in the organization of production and in politics. Transition is the period when these new forms of production are organizing themselves within the old society, generating a parallel and anti-authoritarian social organization. Revolution is when these new anarchic social relations become bigger than the old order, breaking it down and emancipating themselves. This is a rebuttal to the Marxist-Leninists, but it is also a warning for us never to seek shortcuts to revolution, abandoning prefigurative politics. The new society can only exist in practice and any social practice that is authoritarian, if adopted by anarchists makes them move away from anarchism, being a deviation and not a shortcut. In my view, the best form of prefiguration is the organization of production through cooperatives, as they not only allow anarchists to practice their ideals in a concrete way, but also allow for their livelihood and the accumulation of economic resources by the anarchist movement, which can be used for mutual help in nearby communities. This will set an example for the working class, who will naturally engage in seeing that this is emancipatory for them.

[@JuanCortez-xn8ur]

Amazing that we are still arguing over these semantics.

[@TheToby121]

Juan Cortez It is not simply a disagreement over semantics The positions taken and elaborated on by the different perspectives are expressions of fundamentally different understandings

[@petercahill6696]

I also have some questions concerning theory: 1. What's your stance on the relationship between Marxism and anarchism? 2. Since much of your interpretation of Marx is similar to the left Communist stance, what is your opinion on leftcoms like Pannekoek and Bordiga? I've been reading some of Bordiga lately, and tbh I don't know if I'd end up being all that fond of him once I'm finished.

[@anarchozoe]

1. I'm in favour of a synthesis of marxism and anarchism. I made this video a few years ago - kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z57QopiGa92pl7M I dislike most marxists I see online though. I think they tend to have a really poor understanding of Marx because they've internalized the orthodox marxist interpretation that's dominant in marxist parties. 2. I've never read Bordiga. I really like Pannekoek though, especially as he independently advocates lots of stuff that's at the core of anarchism eg workers developing new capacities and needs, like how to make decisions democratically, through their participation in social movements.

[@Haden475]

anarchopac You a fan of communization theory? I find its a really nice synthesis of marxism and anarchism. The more I read about it the more mind-blown I am by the solid takes they have.

[@BigBennKlingon]

In different ways both Anarchists and Leninists formulated a lot of reactionary (or at best superfluous) ideas over the 20th century that took them away from communism. "Left communists" are the only milieu that stayed focused throughout the 20th century.

[@anarchozoe]

@Haden Okraboi I am not into communization because of how influenced by insurrectionist anarchism it is.

[@Haden475]

anarchopac whats your critique of insurrectionist anarchism?

[@anarcho-aspichist9851]

I just saw maoist doesn't understand marxism and was like yes of course

[@chadmarx7718]

What makes maoism incompatible with marxism? (Genuinely curious, i'm a newbie to the left so i dont know a lot of theory yet)

[@theabsurd9416]

I believe the USSR was something.

[@djuradjuric7161]

It was definitely a society

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@djuradjuric7161 The USSR was * puts on fish bowl glasses A Socialist State 😎

[@jakthehobo1471]

It was definitely a government. I hate governments.

[@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII]

mmmmyeah gimme some of that Unruheist theory

[@brettuhl7818]

He looks like a discount fall out character

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

About that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" thing: Do you know the YT channel of Paul Cockshott? In his video "going beyond money" he said that for Marx that slogan did only mean that people who need more, get more, i.e. larger families receive more etc. What do you think about that? Personally, I think Paul Cockshott's economic ideas are great but I want to hear what you think

[@blackmage2116]

Libertarian Leninist Rants I think it's a wrong interpretation from the critique of the gotha programe.

[@anarchozoe]

I think that's wrong and ignores Marx's theory of needs. I wrote this in the comments of a badmouse video a while ago: When Marx uses the term needs he has in mind the particular drives or wants of someone. These needs range from basic psychological needs like hunger or thirst, to more complex and culturally specific needs like the need for a mosh pit or for choral singing. For Marx needs are historically produced and a core part of history is how humans satisfy and produce new needs. Even basic universal needs like hunger are always socially mediated because humans live in societies e.g people experience hunger for culturally specific food like rice. Communism for Marx enables a fuller development of human's needs in the sense that when everyone has free access to what labour produces they will be able to satisfy their basic needs and develop more complex needs e.g access to dancing lessons for everyone will let all kinds of people develop the need to dance in particular styles. This in turn leads people to live more fulfilling and worthwhile lives.

[@petercahill6696]

I think you enjoyed handing over Jason the L. Great stuff.

[@samaval9920]

Finally, some1 who knows the Mss. of 1845, Grindrusse, etc. Too many barely read the Manifesto (not even its basis Principles), Marx & Engels are more difficult to understand, but people like you help. They are like 21st c. followers of ancient religions who only read modern interpretations. !!! They also resemble people who think that that they can read a menu, not a recipe, to cook a new dish of food.

[@CharlesWillisBonsai]

Jason Unruhe is a jabroni.

[@chrisd4504]

But you missed the most important point! What capitalists call markets are not by a long shot 'organic.' The argument that has influenced so many people on the right has also influenced people on the left -that that is in Wealth of Nations. Barter, as a system of internal exchange, has never been observered

[@Failurefirst123]

Throughout the whole video i felt you were destroying xexizy’s argument and not jason’s

[@milascave2]

None of the Leninist states ever progressed to a states society, nor did any of them ever try to.

[@gekkobear1650]

You might as well have titled the video "Lenin doesn't understand Marx"

[@gekkobear1650]

@@assasination1100 yeah I kinda disagree with this now. Lenin mostly did understand Marx and Marx just was even more wrong than I thought he was

[@RussiaGoodFantastic]

I havent watched the entire video, but at 33:04 this is our whole point, why do you think we call ourself Marxist - *Leninist* ? For us Lenins writings are just as important as Marx. Lenin set the theory for the role of the state and how the economy has to function under socialism, in his way how he interpreted Marx theory in order to function in the real world. So where are you debunking us even if you would be right about Marx?

[@anarchozoe]

Maoist Rebel News made claims about what Marx himself thought. These were false claims. I objected to people reading Lenin into Marx, rather than reading Marx on his own terms. I did not object to people reading Lenin or being influenced by him or thinking he's an important intellectual. I happen to really dislike Lenin but this video wasn't about that.

[@randomserb761]

@@anarchozoe Would you consider making a video on/explaining why you dislike Lenin? I'd be quite interested on your perspective on his interpretation of Marxim!

[@goopium5970]

i thought lenin went on quot-a-thons, this is the definitive quot-a-thon on becoming of socialism, and also on the use of the word presupposition

[@Aconitum_napellus]

Love that burn of tankies at the end.

[@thawhiteflip]

His response is...rather sparse. You'll know it isn't worth your time when you see the thumbnail.

[@artemkanarchist]

Thank you very much for your work!❤️🖤

[@albertomoreno-torres7776]

I feel like my brain got bigger after watching this video

[@benjaminfranklin7263]

Would you say that Socialism, however you want to define it, let's say: worker control of the means of production and socialism in one nation, is a necessary intermediary, but temporary, solution until scientific and technical advancements abolish the need for disagreeable low skill labor (through automation)?

[@pania3952]

Socialism and communism is not the same 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@guyfauks2576]

It's complicated

[@entitygamma1792]

Well, I never really knew just how transphobic tankies were until this affair. Congrats guys, you well and truly destroyed any hope of being taken seriously, and not being seen as just whining bigots.

[@anarchozoe]

Its important to keep in mind how many tankies have opposed Jason's transphobia

[@entitygamma1792]

anarchopac that’s true. There were sadly a lot of people defending him but MLs are still pretty inclusive (at least the ones who don’t scream about IDPOL all the time)

[@fun_ghoul]

Taken seriously...by one anarchist putz who conflates one Nazbol (yeah, I fuckin' said it!) with all "tankies"? Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, moron.

[@RR-nf3qh]

anarchopac Yes speaking out against transphobia while supporting dictators that in prison murder and even torture feminists and trans rights activists in their country totally makes sense

[@fun_ghoul]

_"Yes speaking out against transphobia while supporting dictators that in prison murder and even torture feminists and trans rights activists in their country totally makes sense"_ Why are we talking about the US now, tho? 🤔

[@alrecks619]

Ah yes, the guy who insists on forgetting that he doesn't actually turn off the yikesy mod in fallout 4 after the mod literally plays after he dominated his opponent in game.

[@phylwx]

Lol. 0:48 seconds and I've heard enough. You deserve the joke response. Marxism is not dogma.

[@robertstan298]

What the fuck are you smoking pal? You're time stamping a random point in the debate he's analyzing... and imply he said what now? How does that even work? BS much?

[@NullStaticVoid]

"Once Communism has developed into a phase of being, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be dissolved. " Except that never, ever happens. Not saying we shouldn't be against capitalism. But the idea that we will replace the current liberal democracy with a 'temporary dictatorship while we set up a communism', is not only gullible, it's the reason why nobody wants to talk to communists. We saw what happened with those temporary autocracies in Korea, China, Russia, Cambodia etc. It's not temporary if it lasts for generations.

[@j.j.dragon9482]

Dictatorship means absolute rule. Dictatorship of the proletariat means absolute rule of the proletariat class. Check out Marx was not a statist by Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy

[@jamesmorgan9258]

rekt?

[@geth7112]

Lol He looks like Sergeant hatred from Venture Brothers

[@respobabs]

critique of the gotha programme is cursory at best

[@hamishfatcat3385]

That thumbnail keeps bringing me back xD

[@xasthurwithin4178]

Communism is not a mode of production. You are conflating "mode of production" and "socialism" and "communism" here. They are very different things. Marx doesn't talk about social relations in a vacuum, but as being interlocked with the real, material reality of production. About the state thing: Keep in mind Marx died before releasing Capital Vol. 4, which was supposed to be about the state. The state doesn't really play that much of a role in Marx's writings, you should check out Engels for that. The differentiation between "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "socialism" is a bit outdated, since, contrary to what Marx predicted, the revolution occured in single, underdeveloped countries and not globally. The real proletarian condition was abolished in the USSR internally, but the capitalist siege demanded a dictatorship of the proletariat against it. Socialism as a transitory phase to communism is described in Engel's "Principles of Communism". If you take Marx's predictions about revolutionary change as a formula, you are contradicting Marx, who criticized utopian socialists a lot who tried to see socialism in a normative way. Marx was very cautious when giving such outlooks. In the end you are just claiming things, such as Marxist-Leninists not understanding Marx, etc. but you don't really give any concrete arguments as to why this is the case. I'm sure you can criticize Jason (who you are using as a strawman for every Marxist-Leninist in your video) on many grounds, but just quoting Marx and saying "that's why you're wrong bucko" isn't really that convincing for me. The debate between Muke and Jason, which was a clusterfuck in every regard, was about the USSR. You should address that so we can all have a honest debate, because I think people like Muke who come up with these ultraleftist arguments are not entirely honest.

[@Painocus]

First off, *Jason* was the one who claimed that Marx believed Socialism and Communism to be separate modes of production with transitions between them. Whether you or he think they actually are is irrelevant, because Jason was making claims about what Marx believed at the time. "Socialism as a transitory phase to communism is described in Engel's "Principles of Communism"." Where? The closest I can find is this: _"Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society."_ Which only says that DemSocs want some of the same things as Communists, but do not want to transition to Communism. That doesn't mean what they want qualifies as proper Socialism in Engel's eyes as he dismisses them as "so-called socialists" just a few lines earlier. Further more when Lenin introduces using Socialism for the transition period he acknowledges that Marx called this period communism: _"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism"_ -Lenin, "The State and Revolution" Again, you can disagree with Marx or Engels or Lenin all you want, but don't put your own ideas in their mouths.

[@kyloken9803]

((The real question is does Marx give any real recipes...))

[@TrenElZombie]

Yup, and we are coming bucko

[@purflesploo]

This is an informative video, but I'm not sure that I agree with your final conclusion that those with less exact readings of Marx are engaging in an orthodoxy of stale and unchanging theory. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant there. If anything, I feel like this video is taking an extremely rigid and orthodox approach to theory by insisting on using terminology that's over a century old rather than accepting that terminology can shift over time and between speakers. To me, it seems like the difference in how you label the transitionary period is really just semantic. I haven't watched the debate to which you're referring, so maybe this difference in terminology affects the substance of Maoist's arguments. But I feel like you did not engage with the core arguments, and instead focused on the exact definitions used by Marx.

[@enfercesttout]

btw i propose pejorative of state-dogs for statist socialists.

[@patrickhenry6695]

He wants to have violent revolution and he cant run a mile lol

[@theabsurd9416]

Body shaming, eh?

[@guyfauks2576]

@@theabsurd9416 nah they're shaming them for being a turd

[@applesflapples9127]

holy shit its skallagrim!

[@beeinthehive]

No anarchist I've ever spoken with a fellow anarchist who thinks it's an instant transformation. It's actually a slow process to us. It's simultaneous, but gradual. We have to show the lumpenproletariats the way, not scare them into it.

[@sinekonata]

So you call "becoming communism" what he calls "socialism" but agree on the rest. Was that distinction worth losing 30' of my day? Nope...

[@tareke586]

Good video!

[@rahulshah8911]

Can't lie used to be an anarchist but the more i watched the likes or Jason and the Finnish Bolshevik and read more Marx and Lenin the more I realised I wasn't one. Respect anarchist actions but It's just such a first worldist ideaology.

[@mikkykyluc5804]

I too find that there is a certain appeal in the non-nonsense and materialist approach of Marxist-Leninist thought, but do be careful to not buy into the reactionary ideas Jason has regarding queer people(he seems to think we embody bourgeois decadence or something). We're anything but bourgeois, with most of us barely scraping by each month; and that's not even getting into how two thirds of the trans women I know are radical lefties.

[@jcrios1917]

I agree, Michael Leibowitz's interpretation of Marx is intriguing considering his reference to Che Guevara's time as Finance Minister during Cuba's transition to Socialism as the correct theoretical line when developing the relations of production i.e non-material moral incentives to accommodate Marxism radical humanism, but as Charles Bettelheim has written, this approach fell prey to short-sightedness while the 'economistic' Soviet model was adopted and proved suitable to Cuba's material conditions and productive forces at the time. Professor Leibowitz also looks to the Bolivarian Revolution as an example of a 21st century Democratic Socialism. Not explicitly ' Libertarian ' but certainly pro-State.

[@randomserb761]

@@mikkykyluc5804 Thank you for this comment, entirely on point!

[@cloudy3318]

Apparently political doctrines now have a geographical character

[@guyfauks2576]

What the fuck does that even mean

[@redflagaesthetic4223]

I like mao but Jason is ridiculous.

[@hichaelhyers]

What does it say about someone to casually drop that they like a tyrannical dictator?

[@noahskeater2264]

Names self anarchopac but is a Marxist rather then anarcho communist and well my ideals might be utopian garbage but at least they're not fundamentally wrong and moral in nature

[@anarchozoe]

I'm an Anarchist and a Marxist

[@noahskeater2264]

Understandable but the dictatorship of the proletariat turns me away from Marx and makes it almost authoritarian in nature

[@chayabat-tzvi1215]

My major criticism of Jason was his mechanical understanding of Marx (and Mao for that matter, which is completely wrong given as to how Mao - following in the tradition of Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu - was much more concerned with the mind and collective self-reflection of society than he was productive forces and "progress"). Marx was not even a materialist if you want to get specific.

[@HarryS77]

Marx was not even a materialist if you want to get specific. You're going to have to unpack that.

[@chayabat-tzvi1215]

+Gustavo Rodriguez Read my comment again. I never stated Mao ignored productive forces in their entirety, only that productive forces were, for him, secondary. Mao didn't simply "apply Marxism-Leninism to China's conditions"; his Marxism breaks from the entire tradition of western Marxism quite heavily (i.e. Mao's "contradictions" are not contradiction in a Hegelian sense, and they never sublate or resolve, which makes him much closer to a Daoist thinker than a Leninist one, plus his description of "contradiction"/conflict is entirely monist and centered around chain of causes).

[@anthonyruiz3296]

How are you so smart?! 0_O

[@willtruth4487]

unintelligible for the layperson

[@noahnoah2747]

you just don't care too much it's all in plain words

[@azertyQ]

20:53 - "human nature" btfo

[@anarchozoe]

Marx believed in human nature. See my video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5qXlax8pZd5eNk

[@onlycommunism9500]

Lenin based, Stalin even more based. Tankie here

[@TheReddShinobi13]

Cringe

[@icedmetal81]

Superb argument for the existence of cultural Marxism presented here.

[@kenseitakesi4521]

Hehe funny