As a non communist, should i read the manifesto? (Plus other Marx and Engels stuff) : asklemmy

[-] 5318008@lemmy.ml 7 points 12 hours ago

Absolutely.

Fundamentally, only reading about ideas that you already agree with is bad for you. You will learn less about your beliefs than if you had read something that challenges your beliefs.

Let's say you're very pro-capitalist, and you want to know everything about capitalism, so you read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Great! You learned some things about the historical basis of your beliefs, and there's value in that. So then you read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Okay! So you're tripling down on the same ideas. You probably already know most of those ideas, though, right? There will be some new stuff, but ultimately it's more of the same stuff you already know.

So you try some more recent authors, and give a shrug to Ayn Rand, and you give Lions and Scavengers a shot. And maybe you pick up a new thing or two. But mostly, it's the same ideas that you're already familiar with.

Do you know what none of these books have? An angle of critique (except Smith, sort of). They're all just listing all of the good things about capitalism, and they're not telling you the bad things. Do you believe that Capitalism is a perfect system to organize a nation's economic policy, with no flaws? No? Then you should be interested in someone who elaborates on some of the negative aspects of capitalism, and what can be done to address those flaws, right? Because if there are flaws, you want to know what they are, so they can be fixed, right?

That's why you should read Das Kapital.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 15 hours ago

Yes, you should. Reading something doesn't mean having to automatically agree with it, but it will broaden your perspective. Read it critically, engage with the arguments being made, and use them to test your own world view. See if the arguments make sense to you, and whether you have strong counter arguments of your own to the ones being made.

[-] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 14 hours ago

It's good, it's def on the list. You'll be surprised by how moderate-seeming of Reforms it actually calls for, while being a revolutionary program.

Also read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Wage Labor and Capital, and Critique of the Gotha Program. State and Revolution by Lenin and Reform or Revolution by Luxemburg are other great foundational works.

This is a good theory foundation to begin reading socialist history books: Wretched of the Earth, Black Reconstruction in America, Hammer and Hoe, Black Jacobins, History of the German Revolution, History of the Russian Revolution, etc.,

Also big recommendation for Ten Days that Shook the World by Jack Reed, it's legit one of the most exciting books you'll ever come across. It's better than any action fiction book, and it's just straight journalism of the actual October Russian revolution.

If you like podcasts, Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast is pretty good, his last season on the Russian revolution is a good primer for the years prior to the 1917 revolutions, and the first fiveish episodes are pretty good historical and theoretical primers on various revolutionary movements and theorists. Season 10 episodes 2 and 3 are about Marx and Engels specifically, and I know lots of people who had their eyes opened to M&E by these episodes. I think Duncan ends the series on a sour note wrt Lenin that lacks real complexity and depth, but those early episodes are pretty good as an entry-point to Marx&Engels and socialist theory.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago

I feel like you should read anything that people find so polarizing and taboo. It's short and its pretty dang hard to disagree with.

[-] CyberMonkey403@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

Yes. If I may, I would suggest "The origins of family and private property" from Engels. It's not explicitly political, but I find it serves excellently for dissolving some biases towards historical conditions and how they shape the current affairs.

[-] Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago

Yes, origin of the family is great. I read it as a teenager before any other socialist material and it was the first time in my life where I felt my worldview had been radically changed.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Absolutely. It's short.

Do note that most of how communism worked, on paper and in practice, originated later, though. Marx, a German who mostly lived in England, wrote the Manifesto in 1848 and died in 1883, while the revolution was in Russia in 1917. And there's stuff in the manifesto that obviously didn't age well, like the bit about the invention of trains leading to the end of nationalism.

Still, it's great historical perspective, and obviously inspired how the Soviet Union looked at things pretty heavily.

[-] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 8 points 1 day ago

Yes, an education is worthwhile. Read many philosophies inluding Marx, Hegel, Kant, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Kropotkin, Stirner, Rudolf Rocker, Graeber etc. Though not my career, I keep studying for fun.

As with The Bible, there is a clergy surrounding philosophical figures. You may join their congregation. I choose not to partake. Read The Bible to understand society, but you don't need to join the congregation.

[-] distal@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago

Whatever you think of Marx, it's undeniable he has literary value. I'd say read him.

[-] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 41 points 1 day ago

Sure, the Manifesto is a pretty short easy read. But being more politically educated is always good

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I’d say that Das Kapital is more useful. The manifesto was a specific call to arms for a specific time. It’s worth understanding as a historical note, but, it’s not really a theoretical work.

Das Kapital, is a work about a theory of political economy and layed out the actual basis of Marxist theory.

Everything else is sort of down stream of that. At least in regards to understanding what specific objections or concerns people in Marxist thought have.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago

Read principles of communism instead, it is the same content but better formatted

Oh, and watch Luna Oi's Marxism 101: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeaTLoy1C9rM

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 day ago

Yes. As much as Marx set the foundation for these ideas, the people parroting these ideas today often clash with a lot of what he believed in. So it's important to understand what he was saying vs what those people tell you he was saying.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Can you elaborate a bit more? What groups stand against Marx while claiming to adhere to his beliefs, in your view? I agree with the idea that many clash with Marx, but a gut feeling tells me we disagree on which groups.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

My first comment apparently didn't go through so if that somehow materializes it's probably better than this one. But I where it went.

I think honestly a lot of what he said has fallen on deaf ears. Marx was an internationalist, deeply suspicious of the state and anti-classist. Most socialists today have fallen prey to the modern nationalistic mindset. They want to defend their glorious socialist state and bad mouth the evil bad capitalist ones so much they have no desire to be allies with the working class anywhere else, they want to praise their bourgeoisie and denounce the ones they don't like which is pretty much not what Marx was about. Modern socialists especially on lemmy here are more like national socialists, no pun intended, genuinely. Marx believed in the idea that a transitional government would form and become essentially obsolete. You might hear some socialists talk about this idea of a transitional government but that requires more suspicion and judgement on government than many of them are willing to do. The states continue to amass power all over the world and they often praise certain ones they have probably been conditioned to praise.

It's important to note Marx lived in basically a different world than today, he couldn't predict any of this. He's also not god, he isn't right about everything and often revised his own work. Socialists want to hang on his every word but as he said according to Engles "I myself am not a Marxist" in response to the growing movement in France.

Tl;dr - socialists today are more nationalistic and dogmatic than he would've ever liked to see.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 12 hours ago

There are a couple of problems I have with your critiques.

First, defense of existing socialism is not a neutral process. It's done to protect socialist construction, warts and all, while it advances. This is not done uncritically, critique is generally not shared among the public as much as support is, because time has proven that imperialist bourgeoisie will exploit any disunity to turn workers against themselves. Breaking up unity is how the bourgeoisie maintains power.

Second, nationalism. The modern internationalism is very much in line with Marx, and recognizes the right of nations to self-determination. Internationalism begins with national sovereignty, which is why often reactionary countries are supported in national liberation movements when this improves the position of the international working class, such as the strong support for Palestine despite the resistance not being socialist (except for groups like the PFLP).

Finally, the withering of the state. The job of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to develop the means of production to a large scale, which is the basis of socialized production, and maintain rule of the proletariat, gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The goal isn't to abolish government or administration, but instead what Marx called the state, which is not synonymous with how a classless administrative body would work.

That pretty much sums it up.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 points 12 hours ago

But there is basically 0 criticism of these states that declare themselves socialist. It's all defense and national pride which is exactly what Marx wasn't about. Regardless of what you believe and how it could be used against these movements, that's not what Marx was about.

The modern internationalism is very much in line with Marx, and recognizes the right of nations to self-determination. Internationalism begins with national sovereignty

Personally I completely disagree. It's like arguing to build a bridge you have to flood the river first, you're making it more difficult. Marx never believed in anything about nations having self determination he believed states and borders were constructs.

I definitely agree about Palestine but there are other atrocities I won't mention because people get really mad about them which are completely glossed over, ignored or even demonized because it will paint certain states in a certain light and cause that whole nationalistic mindset to rear it's ugly head from certain groups here. So yeah they support Palestine but I'd argue it's more about the adversary for a lot of these activists, not the workers themselves, or we'd have a lot different conversations appearing on lemmy.

The job of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to develop the means of production to a large scale

People will be mad at me again but that's not happening. Like I said, states across the world continue to amass power. This is just not something Marx would ever be in support of.

I'm speaking solely from the perspective of what he wrote he believed in not my personal beliefs so passerbyers don't rage at me about this. Marx believed in the international socialist, workers uniting regardless of borders and was heavily against the concept of the state or borders as those are tools of the bourgeoisie. I think it really boils down to, if you find yourself championing a state or defending a state without also expressing criticism you're not really embracing Marx.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 12 hours ago

You have a dogmatic view of nationalism, ironically. Nationalism, when resisting colonialism and imperialism, is progressive. The national struggle is a class struggle. Nationalism can easily turn into something reactionary when it is done to reinforce colonialism and imperialism as well. Marx absolutely did agree with this, evidenced by his support of the Polish nationalist movement for independence. The working class is an international class, but this does not mean they are without nations. To erase the national struggle is class reductionism.

As for socialist states, they have indeed been developing and growing. The development of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not something Marx opposed, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Marx's theory of the withering of the state in the transition from lower-stage communism to higher-stage communism. The economic basis of this is one where class struggle has ended, and in a world where imperialism is dominant socialist states cannot wither away entirely. They must react to the siege they exist in.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 points 11 hours ago

Okay that's fine to believe. But again I'm talking about Marx. He was never supportive of nationalism he was specifically internationalist and simultaneously believed states and borders were bourgeoisie constructs. So trying to claim he is supportive of those just is not true. It's absurd to say he agreed with that, he didn't support the Polish nationalist movement because it was nationalist. He supported a revolution that would break up the Russian dominance.

So if your nationalist support is to a very large, rich and established nation. He wouldn't support that.

I'm not erasing a national struggle. The socialists I'm speaking of tend to be of some of the richest nations on the planet who are supporting their continued growth in one way or another. That is not a revolutionary faction working to undo the dominance of a powerful state. He would not support that.

As for the second part of what you said I think this is exactly where Marx conversations end because he lived in such a different world, the idea of these structures existing wasn't something he would be familiar with. What his opinions are on these fronts is never going to be clear. But the idea that he would ever support a powerful state is pretty inaccurate. There's also the whole side that the reason you have Leninism and Stalinism is because Marx didn't really talk about the structure of a state or outline what it would look like. He believed it would come about naturally. So once you start talking about the actual structure, what makes a socialist state and if you can say it is a socialist state that Marx would support you're stepping away from Marx and moving towards more modern socialist thinkers which is a more broad conversation and leans away from what I'm talking about.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago

No, you're fundamentally incorrect about Marx's position, and you're butchering mine. Marx, like the Marxists that took after him, understood the national struggle as a struggle for sovereignty, the basis of which is in internationalism. Internationalism and nationalism are not contradictory, nor did I or Marx ever say that Marx supported the Polish because they were nationalist. This is reductive, as is collapsing the entire working class into one without nations. Marx did not see nations as bourgeois constructs, in fact he explicitly stated that communism would bring about the end of exploitation of nation by nation, not just man by man.

Lenin developed the national question further, as did Stalin. However, the basis of the national question as Marxists understand it today, as one where internationalism can only exist in practice between sovereign nations, and that therefore the quest for sovereignty is a progressive struggle, was with Marx from the onset, hence why he supported Poland against Russia, not just for the sake of Russian revolution but also for Polish independence. The same again happened with Marx supporting the freeing of the Statesian slaves.

As for Marx, he never bothered charting what a socialist state would look like, correct, but he always supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, the absolute rule of the working class against reactionary classes. This is a historically necessary process, one where he made the famous quote:

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

This isn't because Marx was a marvel villain, but was because he supported the absolute power of the working class as a historically necessary process.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 10 hours ago

The point isn't simply that Marx disliked nationalism and I am not saying nationalism is the opposite of internationalism. It isn't that supporting any state automatically makes someone anti-socialist. It's that Marx's idea of the state is tied directly to class antagonism. The state isn't a neutral entity.

So when a socialist or their movement makes defending its nation a political end in itself I think Marx would view a problem there. If the state is a byproduct of class struggle then preserving and legitimizing that state without criticism will create the exact relationship Marx thought socialism was meant to overcome. The question is what class relations exist, who exercises control and whether the political institution themselves are being transformed or merely preserved. This applies not just to socialists from the US and Chinese socialists, I'm speaking of most nations we'd consider rich; basically all of Europe, Russia. I'm saying loyalty to these nations and being uncritical of them is against what Marx's internationalist and antistate theory was about. But that is where you'll find most of these people talking about socialism.

Marx frames the proletariat movement as international and calls for workers from all countries to unite. So when I talk about modern socialists adopting a nationalist/socialist mindset, I'm not saying that any form of national identity is inherently anti-Marxist. I'm talking specifically about defending the state and its national interests over criticizing the class relations that exist within it. All of these countries have immense wealth disparity and private institutions especially in the manufacturing, tech, retail which in Marx's time were the major institutions he was talking to when he talked about the workers, they were the ones being exploited and in these nations that is still happening. So being defensive and nationalistic about them is not the type of nationalism he would support as they are upholding what he's against. That is what I am talking about when I say how most socialists have embraced a more nationalist/socialist mindset.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago

States and nations are not the same thing, and I think you are confusing me and Marx by conflating the two. Nations are historically constituted, stable communies of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Nations seek sovereignty, through the establishment of a state in their interests. The abolition of the state can only be done once a nation is sovereign, and this is intrinsically tied to the class struggle between workers and the bourgeoisie.

Secondly, regarding private ownership within socialism. The economic basis of markets is in decentralized production. The economic basis of social production and distribution is large, centralized production. Trying to force one into the other forces antagonistic contradictions. The very same contradiction that gives rise to the proletariat taking power through revolution, the centralization of markets creating a new economic basis for social production, also works against socialist construction if this economic base does not exist yet and a socialist state dogmatically collectivizes even decentralized production. This is the basis for the marketization that exists in socialist countries in secondary and underdeveloped industries.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 10 hours ago

But that is not how Marx used the terms in his writing, you are the one confusing Marx here. A state was a political organization they ruled the economy, established because of the class struggle. In his eyes it is a weapon. A nation was a political boundary created by capitalism to define a market.

Basically one was internal, one was external although I don't think he ever expressed it that simply.

Marx famously believed the working person had no country which you could argue was the combination of a state and nation as he viewed them. It is a massively important part of his view.

So no. The idea Marx supported the idea of nationality isn't true it's completely the opposite of what he believed which is why it is very important to push his international socialist mindset because once you don't, you fall into the nationalism trap and begin moving away from his writing. Which is what most modern socialists do, which is what I've been saying.

I've grown over this discussion as you continue to push away from talking about what Marx wrote and his beliefs and continue to push your own idea of what socialism should be and your support of nationalism which isn't what this conversation is about.

I repeat my point, socialists today are more national socialists than what Marx wrote in support of. Whether that's good or bad is a different conversation but Marx would not have supported that mentality as it is completely the opposite of his international socialist opinion. By embracing nationalism socialists today reaffirm class disparity which is very visible today across most nations especially visible here on lemmy.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Nations are not states. I am not confusing Marx, here, you continue to vulgarize his views. Marx was an internationalist, on this we agree, but because you do not understand the concept of a nation you vulgarize what that internationalism means. Looking at Marx's view of Ireland, Marx stressed that the national liberation of Ireland from British colonialism was in fact the correct step towards proletarian internationalism, and that therefore the primary task was liberation from colonialism before liberation from capitalism could be achieved.

Marx indeed said that the international working class has no country. This is indeed true, the overall goal is not individual national supremacy, but international solidarity towards an interconnected future. However, Marx also understood colonialism and the struggle for national liberation, and supported these movements. Lenin and Stalin would go on to develop these ideas further, but they did not divert from Marx on this point.

Socialists today are not more nationalist. You fundamentally misunderstand how internationalism actually works according to Marx himself. Marxists today have a more developed theory of the national question than existed with Marx, but this does not make socialists today "more nationalist." You've fundamentally confused the national question as it existed in Marx's time, and vulgarized him into a class reductionist, one that does not understand primary and secondary contradictions.

The embrace of proletarian internationalism, which includes support for the national sovereignty of all peoples, is what's common on Lemmy. Not these bourgeois ideas of national supremacy of nations, which you have inserted into the equation. Marx and Engels themselves stated that no nation can be free while it oppresses other nations, meaning even in Marx's time national liberation was a core aspect of proletarian internationalism. You turn him into an idealist that does not recognize the real, material process of nations.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 9 hours ago

Uh huh.

The embrace of proletarian internationalism, which includes support for the national sovereignty of all peoples, is what's common on Lemmy. Not these bourgeois ideas of national supremacy of nations, which you have inserted into the equation

No it is not. If this were true you would see more sympathy for certain smaller nation's plights. You don't. You see dogmatic support for "my flavor" of socialism and a strict aggressive nationalistic mentality towards one brand of imperialism over another.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

Vagueposting? Seriously?

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 8 hours ago

I've grown over this discussion as you continue to push away from talking about what Marx wrote and his beliefs and continue to push your own idea of what socialism should be and your support of nationalism which isn't what this conversation is about.

You're continuing to spiral and refusing to acknowledge what Marx literally wrote in support of your own views. You're not being genuine and I've grown over this discussion as I don't see a point talking to someone who is both trying to pull the conversation away from the initial point and completely contradicting what Marx wrote.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

Again, I am upholding Marx's position on internationalism. I've explained that you have vulgarized it repeatedly by painting Marx as an idealist. Marx supported Ireland, Poland, and more against colonialism precisely because he was an internationalist, he directly said that no nation can be free while it oppresses another.

State it clearly: where am I contradicting Marx?

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 points 8 hours ago

Because you continue to stretch Marx's views into what the Marxists as they identify view today as if they are the same. When they contradict basic things he literally said which is, if you go all the way to the top, exactly what I am saying and why this guy should read Marx. I have no interest going in circles with you again about this so this is the last time I'm going to say this.

Marx did not support the idea of a state, of borders or nations as whatever way you want to define them. Not only were they tools of capitalists but he literally believed socialists should be internationally minded and reach over national borders to support each other, which he did when it came to imperial powers, extending his support to nationalist movements. Which makes complete sense as nationalist movements will be what forms to break away from imperialist control which we both seem to understand but you try to take that and run with it and apply it further to mean Marx supported nationalism when he only supported nationalist movements in the face of imperialism. You can see in how he responded about French Marxists, that is how he would view this type of thinking and how he would respond to modern "Marxists" and socialists who want to fling his name forward as a weapon.

Him supporting nationalist movements is not supporting nationalism, which you seem to continue to argue in support of. Which I find rather exhausting to have to continually repeat what he literally wrote. Like the core things he wrote.

Socialists today are very nationalist. They are essentially wardens of their state for whatever country they are from. Especially here on Lemmy where you will see socialists from the US believe they can warp the state to enact their socialist goals, the opposite of what he believed, or socialists from China who completely defend the country's entire structure even though the majority of it would be completely against what Marx believed from the continued exploitation of workers, to state controlled media that is highly censored and extremely non-critical of the state and ruling political class. Both of these continue to support the state that enforces class disparity which is like his main argument.

Brandolini's law, I don't care to have this discussion with you further. What's the point? I don't care if you believe me? I see what you're saying. It's wrong in the context of Marx. I've seen you post on Lemmy, you do this behavior everywhere and don't seem to understand how it goes against Marx's beliefs.

In most simple terms. Be highly critical of every and all states, support all working class regardless of national identity/borders, abolish social classes. That's Marx in a nutshell, it's really not that deep or hard to understand. Socialists today are not critical of their state especially in places like China and in countries like the US they might be critical of the state but they do not work to abolish social classes. Across the board most socialists don't actually support workers regardless of borders. Many people here who identify and run around with the word of Marx are also against Ukraine or the US or China or Russia when there are workers in all those countries who we should be working to unify with. So I stand by my very first comment and have zero interest continuing this pointless discussion with someone who genuinely is trying to bend what Marx said to fit with what self identifying Marxists today say as if they are the same thing, they are not. Marx would not support these "Marxists" today.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

Again, nations are not states. They aren't borders, they aren't whatever confusing idea you believe they are. Marx factually supported proletarian internationalism, which included explicit support for Irish and Polish liberation, to list two examples, against colonialism. Reaching over national borders to support national liberation is a core facet of internationalism as Marx believed the proletariat has more in common with each other than their own bourgeoisie. These ideas are mutually supporting, not contradictory.

You continue to butcher the national question as it exists today. Marx supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a state that cannot but wither as it abolishes class. Socialist states do not stand against Marx, but for them. Your idealist understanding of Marx is closer to anarchism than Marxism. National sovereignty does not mean the establishment of permanent borders or anything of the sort. It means that a nation oppressing another cannot be free, a call for the international proletariat to support the proletariat in oppressed countries against the oppressor countries. This is internationalism.

Regarding China, their socialist market economy is entirely in line with Marx. The basis of markets are decentralized production, the basis of socialized production is highly centralized production. So as to not introduce antagonisms, and develop the productive forces rapidly, markets are employed in underdeveloped industries. This is straight out of Principles of Communism and Manifesto of the Communist Party when Marx and Engels talk about how it is impossible to abolish private property at one stroke as its impossible to multiply the productive forces to their necessary levels overnight.

You collapse internationalism into blindness to imperialism and colonialism. This is the peak of revisionism against Marx, who I again will state supported the Polish and Irish against colonialism as a necessary blow to capitalism for both oppressor and oppressed.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 5 hours ago

I don't know what you're reading. You're literally reiterating what I have already said in past comments and then being super weird and condescending about it. This is why talking to you is pointless as hell.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

To put it very simply, Marx's internationalism supported movements against colonialism and imperialism. He believed the proletariat had more in common with the proletariat of other countries, and called upon them all to work together. This, however, as understood by Marx meant supporting the movement of Ireland as a whole against the British Empire, of Poland against the Russian Empire. He correctly understood that without combatting colonialism, the proletariat of oppressor and oppressed countries could not be free. The quest for national sovereignty is principally an anti-colonial movement.

The abolition of borders is not the same as the abolition of nations. Marx never stated that the nation would wither, but that states would. He did not believe nationality to be a "bourgeois construct." The state, borders, all of this withers as society gradually collectivizes across the entire globe, in international revolution, according to Marx and Engels alone. At this point, no developed theories of nations or imperialism or self-determination exists yet as core to Marxism-Leninism, but even within Marx himself there is a strong understanding that colonialism is a barrier to proletarian revolution, not merely capitalism at a state level.

"Workers of all countries, unite!" The international struggle is one that combats the bourgeoisie of all states, of all nations. However, it principally fights the colonizing bourgeoisie as the primary antagonist when this is a barrier to revolution, as it was in Poland and Ireland. This is the national question before Lenin and Stalin.

Any condescension you see on my part is a response to the repeated, incorrect claims that I am revising Marx. Reading Marx's work on Ireland and Poland make it clear that Marx understood colonialism to be a core obstacle, and thus simply saying "fight the bourgeoisie" without any nuance to it would be reductive and vulgarize Marx. This is why Marx supported the Statesian north against the south, despite both sides being bourgeois.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 hours ago

I've literally said these things but you're just waxing on about them to further your condescension and I just don't respect it.

I suggest you scroll all the way to my first few comments. Maybe you will understand why I am calling socialists today national socialists and telling you that Marx would not support them. These nationalist revolutions you're talking about have nothing to do with the national socialists today who want to just cheer on their version of imperialism and cheer the downfall of those they're told are their enemies. It completely goes against what Marx was talking about and your defense of them is where your contradiction lies. I don't care about your opinions, but you keep pushing them.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

Even if you don't agree with an ideology it's always best to read it's basis so you can accurately identify what you don't agree with.

Asklemmy