Marxist-Leninist, scientist. [she/her]
This article explains what organizing is and where some of the confusion in terms comes from: https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-06-06-what-is-organizing/
I also like gramsci’s essay here on building the institutions that will replace the bourgeois state: https://redsails.org/democrazia-operaia/
Gene Sharp. This is a good overview: https://redsails.org/marcie-smith-gene-sharp/
Nearly everyone in the west is online. There isn’t a “real life” and a “fake online life.”
Creating the tools to build community is important. Having places to share information and resources and experiences outside of spaces controlled by big tech is important and could become even more so if communism really threatens the status quo. That makes tools like lemmy useful.
However, it’s also on the community to treat these alternative spaces as valuable, as something that can be that resource for people, and as a community that matters. Dessalines and others might have built the tools but it is on us to put them to use.
It’s probably more worth my time to take a leaf out of Roderic’s book and not post on here but the idea that he coordinates a network of alts being a more reasonable explanation to you than that he has friends is just too ridiculous. Here’s some contrary evidence for you to grapple with:
You can listen to a podcast I’ve done here: https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/8d546709-2b54-498a-a29d-a0bde330a940/id/27767583
You can also watch Roderic on a panel about Losurdo and his book in Stalin here: https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1724514720374301034?s=19
Do you really think we are the same person?
My experience as a scientist is that to do good science, you need to be thinking dialectically. I think a lot about why more scientists are not Marxists; people who are good at thinking about the interconnectivity and changing nature of things in their science turn to eclecticism in their political beliefs/philosophy. Part of this is that I think we treat science and politics as such disparate things that must never interact.
A lot of the “business” of science is very undialectical, and that’s where you see the failures of the field manifest. For example, assessment of a scientist’s contributions based on first authorship, journal prestige, etc, encourages bad practices with respect to collaboration and sharing results.
You might enjoy this article by Bernal, a Marxist scientist: https://redsails.org/the-social-function-of-science/
Already we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human action. The task which the scientists have undertaken — the understanding and control of nature and of man himself — is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society. The methods by which this task is attempted, however imperfectly they are realized, are the methods by which humanity is most likely to secure its own future. In its endeavour, science is communism. In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors. In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realize that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal. Not orders, but advice, determine action. Each man knows that only by advice, honestly and disinterestedly given, can his work succeed, because such advice expresses as near as may be the inexorable logic of the material world, stubborn fact. Facts cannot be forced to our desires, and freedom comes by admitting this necessity and not by pretending to ignore it. These things have been learned painfully and incompletely in the pursuit of science. Only in the wider tasks of humanity will their full use be found.
It’s interesting to note that the household survey tracked the revised numbers more closely than the preliminary data (final graph in report). There has been a lot of handwringing about why people are unhappy with the economy while economic indicators look good, and perhaps this sheds some insight.
I think dota has a lot of avenues for better understanding communism and dialectics.
As one example, the way the five roles fit together in the balancing of their power spikes and the harnessing of their skill sets towards a common goal, it makes me think of this Che quote:
One acquires in the face of work the old joy: the joy of fulfilling a duty; of feeling important within the social mechanism; of feeling oneself a cog that has its own unique characteristics, that is necessary — although not indispensable — to the production process. And, moreover, a conscious cog. A cog that has its own engine, driven further and further every time, in order to bring about to happy conclusion one of the key premises of socialist construction: the availability of a sufficient quantity of consumer goods for the entire population.
I’m at a loss for what you think I think management is because it certainly isn’t “a single manager to solve problems” nor “top-down” nor excluding of employees from reporting or decision-making. Perhaps we agree but use language differently:
These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Of course, we should increase education for everyone. It enables better workplace democracy and efficiency. But as per the article I linked in my last comment, specialization and division of labour (required for efficient production) means some workers will also specialize in management, i.e., become managers.
I’m curious what “current dogma” you’re thinking about that says managers will become obsolete.
I think you are very narrowly defining manager as a manager of capital (i.e., seeking to maximize profits without care for what products are being made). I think you should read this: https://redsails.org/the-relationships-between-capitalists/
As Marx later emphasizes, one consequence of the development of management as a distinct category of labor is that the profits still received by owners can no longer be justified as the compensation for organizing the production process. But what about the managers themselves, how should we think about them? Are they really laborers, or capitalists? Well, both — their position is ambiguous. On the one hand, they are performing a social coordination function, that any extended division of labor will require. But on the other hand, they are the representatives of the capitalist class in the coercive, adversarial labor process that is specific to capitalism.
It is only the last part — the coercive, adversarial role played as representatives of capital — that will become obsolete. The coordination part of management (which includes coaching and motivation and conflict resolution) will remain.
My experience with organizations, from families to RPG groups to community associations to capitalist enterprises, is that in a management void, some people will take on management responsibilities. Since these roles require skill and entail responsibility for certain tasks, it’s better to formalize it and train people for it. Do you not also see this in the organizations you are part of? Or could you be underestimating the amount of labour others are putting in to managing your community?
Workflow optimization and employee morale will still be important under socialism.
Workflow optimization is just management of people/resources/timelines (and is present in non-repetitive jobs too): what processes aren’t working well together, what were the root causes of issues we encountered, how do we fix these problems? This, too, gets better with experience and study and some workers should specialize in this sort of management.
Employee morale (and other aspects of emotional work) will also still be a relevant question under socialism: how do you balance a specific worker’s development interests with the needs of the job, how do you manage interpersonal conflict, how do you build consensus for or mediate disagreement raising from decisions the group needs to make? Straight-up boring old motivation questions also do not disappear just because workers have a stake in the fruits of their labour.
It’s not clear to me why management would become obsolete. Good management (the coordination of people, resources, and timelines) requires skill and is a science, and the efficiency we get from division of labour/specialization suggests workplaces would be better off if some workers specialized in management roles.
See, for example, Krupskaya:
We, Russians, have hitherto shown little sophistication in this science of management. However, without studying it, without learning to manage, we will not only not make it to communism, but not even to socialism.
After you read it, you might like this essay: https://redsails.org/maoist-and-daoist-dialectics/
It looks at the influence of Daoism and The Art of War on Mao’s dialectics, and compares this eastern development of dialectics with the branch of dialectics that evolved in the west (eg Hegel, Lenin). (Though obviously these developments weren’t fully independent.) It was a really helpful essay for me for understanding dialectics.
Tao Te Ching by Laozi (there’s a translation by Ursula Le Guin, and many others besides) — 4th century BCE
Maybe also Art of War, by Sun Tzu (5th century BCE).
Both very influential works in Chinese philosophy and literature.
I agree with another poster that more recent writers can be easier entry points into theory because the authors translate it in ways that highlight ML theory’s relevance to today and recent history. As the other poster mentioned, Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds is good on breaking through cold war nonsense about the USSR, there’s a couple chapters online here. Losurdo’s Liberalism: A Counter history dissects the dominant ideology of our time. There’s a short summary of that book by the author here.
No one here has yet tackled the question on how important it is to read Capital: I think it’s crucial. There are so many concepts it lays out and arguments it refutes that it makes reading other theory much easier. I think of Lenin’s Imperialism as a sequel to Capital, so it makes sense to me you find it challenging to read. That said, Capital is also challenging to read and it might help to familiarize yourself with some of the concepts it covers before you tackle it. Here are some (mostly short) essays for that purpose.
I’ve posted a lot of links from RedSails because it was started for this purpose: to make theory accessible and demystified and relevant for today. If there’s a topic or author you want to read more on, it has curated articles for those ends.
I’ll end with my favourite Lenin, which I think highlights why we can’t “go back” to some better time before capitalism but must go through capitalism to socialism.
She did! https://redsails.org/winged-eros/
Briefly, Kollontai promotes “Winged Eros”, which is a multifaceted connection between people, and not “Wingless Eros”, which is sex without friendship or emotion. But on the other hand, she also denounces the bourgeois ideal of love, which is possessive and centered around the economic unit of the married couple, and which denies the multifaceted nature of love.
The essay covers more than just that though: she starts by tracing how ideals of love change as socioeconomic systems develop, and she ends with a discussion of what proletarian ideals of love could be. It’s a great essay.
I think the confusion about “feudalism is rent” stems from a lack of understanding about what capitalism is and what feudalism is. Feudalism is a very different mode of production: serfs were tied to their lords, but lords also had duties towards their serfs. This essay talks about what changed from feudalism to capitalism, which is something everyone in the 19th century was very aware of. Today, feudalism is so long ago that we have a hard time even conceiving of something that isn’t capitalism. (And so we come up with bizarre, indefensible definitions like “feudalism is when rent.”)
Marx lays out in Capital that rent, profits and interest are all crystallized surplus-value, i.e., all of them are capital:
Capital, therefore, is not only, as Adam Smith says, the command over labour. It is essentially the command over unpaid labour. All surplus-value, whatever particular form (profit, interest, or rent) it may subsequently crystallize into, is in substance the materialization of unpaid labour. The secret of the self-expansion of capital resolves itself into having the disposal of a definite quantity of other people’s unpaid labour. (Capital Vol 1)
This point is really important to him, as he tells Engels:
The best points in my book are: 1. (this is fundamental to all understanding of the facts) the two-fold character of labour according to whether it is expressed in use-value or exchange-value, which is brought out in the very First Chapter; 2. the treatment of surplus-value regardless of its particular forms as profit, interest, ground rent, etc. This will be made clear in the second volume especially.
Something novel about Marx’s books is that they look at capital from labour’s perspective, which I wrote about here. There are scenarios in which the difference between rent and interest and profit are meaningful. But for the sake of the liberation of workers from the oppression of capital, they are all the same:
In fact, the form of interest and profit of enterprise assumed by the two parts of profit, i.e., of surplus-value, expresses no relation to labour, because this relation exists only between labour and profit, or rather the surplus-value as a sum, a whole, the unity of these two parts. The proportion in which the profit is divided, and the different legal titles by which this division is sanctioned, are based on the assumption that profit is already in existence. If, therefore, the capitalist is the owner of the capital on which he operates, he pockets the whole profit, or surplus-value. It is absolutely immaterial to the labourer whether the capitalist does this, or whether he has to pay a part of it to a third person as its legal proprietor. (Capital vol 3)
Accusing someone of being “brainwashed” isn’t, as far as I have seen, so rhetorically effective that I think we need a drop-in replacement like “hate-passed.” If “you’re super licensed” sounds silly it’s because “you’re super brainwashed” is also silly.
What about:
“Do you actually believe that nonsense or does it just give you license to discount the incredible social progress China has made?”
I think the post earlier in this thread used it well. They’re not defining the term, they’re explaining the phenomenon. Because it uses a familiar term, it is easy to understand and doesn’t read jargony:
I think this is better understood as licensing American settlers to unleash their preexisting white supremacist worldview onto a politically acceptable target.
Rejecting the term “brainwashing” means not only improving our understanding of how propaganda works but also improving our rhetoric.
you should start a reading circle.
the easiest is to meet up together and take turns reading aloud, discussing as you go. reading is a skill, and you’ll all get better as you go.
as to what to read, there are many classic intro texts, but something you personally found instructive or insightful or applicable to your situation will probably be particularly meaningful for your friends. you can let questions that arise from there guide your next picks.
if you’re meeting for an hour, something that’s 15 minutes long is probably the right length to get started.