In general, I’d argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you’re in the former category then you’re a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you’re in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.
I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not “oligarchs,” but the bourgeoisie; not “workers,” but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.
Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.
The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through “surplus value.” Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice a scheaper, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.
I told you recently that the understanding of socialism in the West—and my own understanding of it—are two different poles.
That guy is very smart and well-read, but what he says… really surprises me.
When I read his first post, I didn’t even understand which camp he belonged to… because a person cannot defend oligarchs while being a socialist. To me, that is nonsense!
To be honest, I read through a massive amount of text there—it’s all so impeccably written, yet the essence of it keeps slipping through my fingers… It reminds me a lot of an LSD trip… ))) “The truth is out there”—just like in The X-Files… )))
Mind you, I don’t mean to offend anyone; I am, after all, just an ignoramus… complete with a beard, felt boots, and a balalaika… reeking of stale vodka.
Yes, I read it—Rule Number Two: Show respect, especially when you’re in the wrong.
To be honest, I didn’t see anything particularly outrageous in there. I’ve been called a Nazi on Reddit… and they didn’t bat an eye.
And this is actually the first time that my opponent got removed rather than me; I’m extremely surprised.
By the way, I recently stumbled across a YouTube video—check it out. It features Yusupov—the guy who killed Rasputin. I had no idea he’d acted in films.
This is not a very usable understanding. How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Material interests aren’t as simple as “workers for workers, owners for owners,” it describes the intersecting and even contradictory ways in which people navigate this system to achieve or maintain their own level of material security. Similarly, the kind of class analysis you just described is bereft of any explanations for how race, gender, sexuality, indigeneity, or ability intersect in class dynamics; there is a reason we don’t do it this way.
whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Private property in the socialist context doesn’t refer to home ownership (unless its being used for landlording). It means ownership of means of the production, exploiting labor power. You can consider it synonymous with “absentee property”.
There are certainly some workers who earn some from their labour, and some from exploitation of others labor, but one is usually dominant. And of course in the long term, the trend of centralization of production means that these small-scale exploiters (petit-bourgeios) are eventually pushed out by bigger fish, and have to become workers themselves (called proletarianization).
How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.
Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.
If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.
As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.
Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can’t take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.
This isn’t a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.
who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.
Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that’s not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).
In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.
Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?
Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.
“György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with ‘Western Marxism,’ his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine.”
Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?
On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist
I know you won’t read my reply, but I’ll answer anyway: it’s very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin’s successor.
Lenin and not Lukács
I studied Lenin in school.
I haven’t read Lukács. He wasn’t popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.
In general, I’d argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you’re in the former category then you’re a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you’re in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.
Greetings, Comrade!
I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not “oligarchs,” but the bourgeoisie; not “workers,” but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.
Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.
The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through “surplus value.” Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice a scheaper, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.
Greetings, and agreed on all points.
I told you recently that the understanding of socialism in the West—and my own understanding of it—are two different poles.
That guy is very smart and well-read, but what he says… really surprises me.
When I read his first post, I didn’t even understand which camp he belonged to… because a person cannot defend oligarchs while being a socialist. To me, that is nonsense!
What you’ll find is that understanding of socialism in the west is largely shaped by the CIA, meaning that there is no actual understanding.
To be honest, I read through a massive amount of text there—it’s all so impeccably written, yet the essence of it keeps slipping through my fingers… It reminds me a lot of an LSD trip… ))) “The truth is out there”—just like in The X-Files… )))
Mind you, I don’t mean to offend anyone; I am, after all, just an ignoramus… complete with a beard, felt boots, and a balalaika… reeking of stale vodka.
Please, don’t judge me too harshly! )))
I’m talking about that guy up above who got offended and doesn’t want to reply.
oh you can check the modlog, lemmy is pretty transparent about it unlike reddit https://lemmy.ml/modlog/14681?page=1&actionType=All&userId=23129142
Thanks, Comrade—I’ll check it out!
Once I get a little more settled in here and get to know the locals better, we can pick up our fascinating conversation… )))
indeed, you’ll also notice that https://lemmy.ml/c/ukraine has very different vibe from reddit here
Yes, I read it—Rule Number Two: Show respect, especially when you’re in the wrong.
To be honest, I didn’t see anything particularly outrageous in there. I’ve been called a Nazi on Reddit… and they didn’t bat an eye.
And this is actually the first time that my opponent got removed rather than me; I’m extremely surprised.
By the way, I recently stumbled across a YouTube video—check it out. It features Yusupov—the guy who killed Rasputin. I had no idea he’d acted in films.
https://youtu.be/c2SoWFIixOQ
a very different culture here from reddit, and didn’t know that either about Yusupov
Why was that guy removed?
It doesn’t seem like he said anything outrageous.
This is not a very usable understanding. How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Material interests aren’t as simple as “workers for workers, owners for owners,” it describes the intersecting and even contradictory ways in which people navigate this system to achieve or maintain their own level of material security. Similarly, the kind of class analysis you just described is bereft of any explanations for how race, gender, sexuality, indigeneity, or ability intersect in class dynamics; there is a reason we don’t do it this way.
Those who have labor as their primary source of income, but own capital and thus desire a maintenance of capitalism, are petite bourgeoisie.
Private property in the socialist context doesn’t refer to home ownership (unless its being used for landlording). It means ownership of means of the production, exploiting labor power. You can consider it synonymous with “absentee property”.
There are certainly some workers who earn some from their labour, and some from exploitation of others labor, but one is usually dominant. And of course in the long term, the trend of centralization of production means that these small-scale exploiters (petit-bourgeios) are eventually pushed out by bigger fish, and have to become workers themselves (called proletarianization).
As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.
Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.
If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.
As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.
Removed by mod
How’s this pragmatic action been working out for y’all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point.
Removed by mod
Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can’t take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.
This isn’t a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.
who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.
Removed by mod
Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that’s not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).
In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.
Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.
“György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with ‘Western Marxism,’ his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine.”
Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?
I know you won’t read my reply, but I’ll answer anyway: it’s very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin’s successor.
I studied Lenin in school.
I haven’t read Lukács. He wasn’t popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.
Are they keen on thinking about private property and “the fundamental issue of private property from attention?”
Am I understanding you correctly?