• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    ML would be about a vanguard party. That kind of elected council with central planning can happen without it. That vanguard party is where ML goes all wrong and tends to devolve into cult-like behavior. Edit: and not just the big one’s in Russia/China/N. Korea. Lots of smaller ML groups devolve into cult-like behavior, too.

    I do agree, though, that the second panel is still too specific. There are many ways to organize the workers, and that second panel is far too narrow.

    It is very clear that it’s about Socialism, so leaving AnComms out is fair.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      AnComms are socialists, though. As are communists, and all anarchists who are not AnCaps, but those aren’t even really anarchists.

      Socialism is just about workers controlling the means of production; how you get there, the styles and forms of leadership, and all other things, are where all subgroups differ. The same way that in capitalism you can have Soc-Dems, Liberals, Libertarian Capitalists, Fascists, etc.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        AnComms are under the socialist umbrella, but the comic isn’t delving into every single thing that’s under that umbrella, because it’s not 600 pages long.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Right, instead is it’s delving specifically into ML and making it sound like that is specifically what socialism is; it’s not. And it sounds like you agree, so… I really don’t get what your point is. Sounds like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Vanguard politics consistently lead to a new different hierarchy that is just as bad as the current hierarchy is my problem. Leninism just sucks. The peers who said he sucked were right. Leninism leads to Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, etc. When people try to scare the shit out of us by acting like socialism is more dangerous than capitalism we have Lenin to blame for thinking anyone could have the strength to wield power without being depraved by it.

      Hierarchical societies just don’t work. And I won’t apologize for saying Bolshevism sucks and isn’t even really communism, its just a more weirdly shaped version of colonialism

      • millie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is the conclusion I’ve come to since reading the State and Revolution. The people who are capable of overthrowing the current system aren’t likely to be the same people capable of keeping true to an approach that’s legitimately socialist. There are problems with reformism as well, as it can result in an endless series of small concessions to distract from an equally endless series of measured power grabs.

        If I take what I read of Marx and Engels as likely to be accurately predictive, my conclusion has to be that the circumstances they’re discussing haven’t occurred yet. Basically, Lenin jumped the gun with his support of imposing a revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat. The power structure it creates is too centralized to achieve its goals.

        This would suggest to me that if Marx and Engels are correct, a spontaneous and universal proletariat uprising is probably still down the road somewhere. Basically, we see hints at this state reflected in the microcosm of revolution, but have yet to see the circumstances that cause an actual change of prioritization and autonomy rather than simply a changing of the guard.