"And one of the reasons why Lenin changed so much was basically that many of Marx's predictions simply didn't come to fruition. Like the revolutions weren't happening in the most industrialized parts of the world, but rather the least where the situation was the least bearable." - I'm not sure Marx argued that revolution would start in the places where workers were least exploited rather than the most. It would seem contrary to his theme that people engage in revolution because of their exploitation by the capitalist class. (1/3)

"Pure centralization and exploitation alone also didn't create better means of production." - I'm not sure you'd persuade the Soviets of that, not to mention the Western captains of industry who followed suit with cartels friendly to corporate planning, and Western states who started extensively using the state to drive economic development. The limit later was that the Soviets centralised and rationalised too intensively to compete with the more developed West, and lost not only the context for economic experimentation, but the context for reproducing skills associated with it too. (2/3)

That's why China (having learned the lesson from the Soviets) has economic managers who resemble capitalists but are closely monitored politically through the insertion of party members into the administration of workplaces, and they are firmly subordinate to the Chinese state. The Chinese state does not have its origins as an organising committee for the Chinese capitalist class, and there has as yet been no confrontation there to dislodge the autonomous central bureaucracy and replace it with subordinates to capitalism (as the capitalists did with monarchist states, for example). (3/3)

@Steve 1/3 Revolutions were, according to Marx, happening all the time. The bourgeoise system was according to him particularly revolutionary and overturned lots of older systems. So that revolutions would happen was kind of a given, class struggle and exploitation predate capitalism, though the necessity for a communist revolution is the existence of a proletariat which upon taking power would no longer need to exploit another class and thus could exit the cycle, while an agrarian society could not for example. Again whether that works like that is a different question.

@Steve 2/3 What pretty much all of these system get wrong is that they think if you just throw power at a problem it will magically solve itself, yeah sure for some simple problems that works. But first and foremost you need a plan, you need to familiarize yourself with the problem, tinker and get an understanding of what you're doing or need to find someone who does. However the more you move up the ranks of leadership the farther away you are from doing that and the closer you are to a problem the more you're frustrated and annoyed by your superiors. So the premise might already be wrong.

@Steve 3/3 Those centralized systems work against their own people and expect them to cooperate, good luck with that... In a sense they all mimic monarchism and aristocracies just with a more modern design. Also how is China different? Like the centralized bureaucracy IS the capitalist system. And when that didn't work they tried to give leeway to a capitalist class that does rival their power so as reactionary as ever...

1. I'm just saying that it's not inconsistent with Marx to find that the most exploitative places were the most revolutionary. Marx's basic formula was that exploitation leads to revolution, not that industrialisation does, although in 1860 it may have been less clear that maximum industrialisation was not synonymous with maximum exploitation. 2. It's a mistake to think the Soviets showed that planning didn't work - on the contrary, they showed central planning was massively more powerful than the liberal free markets that had rode roughshod in the 19th century. (1/2)

By the 1930s, states and private corporations in capitalist countries were already extensively consolidating economic activity, rationalising and planning production, and basically emulating the Soviets to a very significant degree in practical, if not ideological terms. That's why China has adopted a similar model today, with capitalist managers present but heavily subordinate to the state (rather than eliminated, as in the USSR). (2/3)

3. I'm not particularly analysing whether China is socialist, or free of exploitation, I'm saying neither their state nor economy is controlled by the capitalist class, and liberal ideas about free markets do not rule the minds of their bureaucrats either. Their economy in raw materials and basic industrial goods is heavily state supervised, as is the principle of national completeness and self-sufficiency. (3/3)

@Steve 1. Exploitation leads to classes (those who exploit and those who are exploited) and that class antagonism leads to class struggle (no one likes to be exploited). But a revolution isn't just a rebellion, but a radical modification of the society, its mode of organization and/or production. Though what is modified by whom and to what end is according to Marx set by the material conditions of those societies.

So idk an agrarian revolution will try to maximize the agrarian means of production, so growth in land and farm workers to increase the agrarian output. Also in order to stabilize their reign they need to freeze the social order in place. While a society ruled by craftsmen and merchants seeks to rework society so to ensure property, to facilitate free trade and provide the means for them to rule.

Now apparently Marx conflated the liberal revolution pushing for civil liberties with the bourgeoise revolution pushing for free markets and argued that the former is a absolutely revolutionary, so much so that it doesn't freeze society in place in some sort of caste system, but rather where it constantly revolutionizes itself without ever getting to consolidate power. On the contrary, all these old power structures, nations, religions, race, sex, etc, are all destroyed

and the only thing that is left standing as demarcation between classes is that of ownership of the means of production is being bourgeoisie or proletariat. Now in a sense that sounds plausible, at the same time, he has fundamentally underestimated the reactionary trends of nationalism for example which dominated the 20th century rather than fade away due to global capitalism. Also capitalism was kinda constraint by all kinds of system trying to use it as a motor for their own goals.

Also in democratic countries there has been the attempt of a division between the political and the economical. So where "the master" is both political ruler and economic owner of the slave and where that proceeds through to feudalism and early capitalism where the rich owned the industry and the political landscape. Nowadays the political government is no longer synonymous with the industrial government (there are overlaps and attempts to influence each other) but the idea of a government...

... out to exploit it's citizens for their own gains and to consolidate it's power over them is no longer valid, and maybe never was 100% even if there was much more justification to see it like that. In a sense the government is already a partially democratic institution holding capitalism in check. So supporting revolutions to overthrow the "oppressive government" more often than not just give rise to the tyranny of a minority rather than something progressive.

Sure there's still a lot o difference between the status quo and communism and capitalism is always just one step away from deregulating everything and ruling with the iron fist of fascism or to have people wave red flags and do the same, but with a different narrative. But the workers indeed still have a lot more to lose than their chains. To some extend that already is a bastardized socialism where the people own the state and can tax the economy.

Rather than a global proletariat, we see a global hugely fractured hierarchy of exploiters and exploited where the majority sees itself in both roles and is unaware of the only exploited which are placed far outside of their reach and field of vision.

2. It's a huge mistake to use central planning or decentralization as paradigms. There are problems that favor a centralized approach and there are problems that favor a decentralized approach. If you have the perfect solution you want to standardize it, if you don't then you might want to experiment, create redundancy or failure tolerance. While if you lack the resources then combining them might be a necessity in the first place.

However to apply centralization or decentralization or their own sake and treat it as a fix all solution is just asinine. Also it's not that the soviet union invented central planning. There's a good chance monarchs and feudal lords have been doing it for millennia. And not just subjugated but also cared for their subjects because they are some sort of asset that protects and increases their wealth. So central planning without democracy is not new.

Also if you look at capitalist companies you'll see the same bureaucratic structures of central planning just with different job descriptions.

However highly centralized production only works if you have 1 problem and one plan. However there are usually lots more problems and rarely the fix all solution. So as a result such a form of organization naturally creates people antagonized to the system, because they find themselves not part of the plan or the plan not fitting their problems...

@Steve Also what are "capitalist managers"?

@Steve Like the Politburo are as much capitalists as whomever is leading their companies. Where do you draw the line here? Do you mean people they bought from other places? Do you consider capitalism to be an ideology? Capitalism is a process and these people try to maximize profits for their company, thus increasing their power and influence, that's as capitalist as any other company.

What it might not do is follow a "free market ideology" where economists think that competition in itself is a virtue, but where they seek to actually win the competition, as capitalists anywhere else aim to do, because that's what the mode of production requires of them.

@Steve 3. How is that not capitalist? Because it's even more regressive? Mercantilist actually? Like how could national socialism ever be communist? Aren't you just pushing the exploited class outside of your narrowly defined system and isn't that just an illusion as this doesn't overcome class struggle or the struggle that the mode of production creates classes it just puts it behind a veil of ignorance and brutality. And it usually turns inward as well.

I'm done you might respond ;)

@haxor789, there's quite a large amount to get through there! 😂

On "liberal revolution pushing for civil liberties", these are often scarcely more rights than people expect to enjoy naturally, and normally enjoy in all societies, rather than thoughts or principles unique to liberalism. The liberal agenda usually is simply attempting to attack constraints on the power of bosses. Other times, it simply encodes their own previous failures - for example, they'll support "free speech" not because of any profound principle, but...

because they've seen previous ruling classes obsess about how to control the uncontrollable, and brutalise (hence radicalise) the population in the process trying to stop people talking politics.

Back to the original point though, I still just don't follow the rationale by which you said it was contrary to Marx that most revolutions happened in less developed/industrialised places.

By Lenin's time, radicalism in the most industrialised places was being either bought off, or heavily redirected. Liberalism was being slowly rolled back. Trade unions were legalised. World war was erupting (indeed that helped Lenin trigger revolution in Tsarist Russia).

So the naked exploitation that Marx and Engels were observing was either having it's edges knocked off, or it was being redirected in a way that forestalled revolution but ultimately both destroyed capital and turbocharged anti-liberal ideas like abolition of free markets, state regulation, and the extension of democratic controls.

Remember "liberal democracy" was a democracy of property owners, with plural votes, property and wealth qualifications, and so on.

2. Again without getting into the details or defending every aspect of the Soviet system, I'm saying that in the 1920s the Soviet system was working massively superior to Western liberal economies. It's false to say they discredited planning, as distinct from free markets.

What struck the Soviet regime, which is the same affecting Western liberal regimes today due to their extensive access to computer technology, is that they increased scales and consolidation so much, and purged so much labour from the management, that the economy became sclerotic, because any change upset a massive integration which had no slack or tolerance for slack to arise.

The liberals, because of their desire to extract compound profits through layers of supply chains, and to force workers to compete, do at least have some economic duplication and redundancy, and a variety of scales, and therefore some innoculation to the end-stage disease for now.

But that's coincidental to the exploitative agenda of liberals. The Chinese do the same now, without letting the capitalists take control at the highest levels.

"capitalist managers" - I mean simply bosses of firms who have some kind of proprietary stake. Often today, most actual bosses don't own their firms - financiers do, and the bosses are managers who are effectively licenced by financiers. The Chinese have a similar approach, but it's the state itself that licences capitalist managers, not financiers.

3. You're right the Chinese have a mercantilist approach. The key point is that isn't liberal - it's utterly opposed to the interest of the global rich. As I say, I'm not trying to take a position on whether China is really socialist.

The key point though is that it's autonomous central bureaucracy is driven by neither personal enrichment nor by a desire to maximally exploit and harm it's working class.

And unlike an aristocracy (which also often has paternalistic elements), it's not hereditary, and it doesn't originate from the exploiting class, and doesn't have the ideological baggage of such an origin. At least so far!

@haxor789, transmission over, you may respond.

@Steve Fair enough. Just wanted to inform you as I usually answer in one stream of thought 😂

@Steve I'm not sure it's fully fair to conflate the liberal enlightenment movement, with the emergence of capitalism just because they happened at similar times and likely influenced each other.

@Steve The think is what Marx describes in that case is not a principled position, but rather an attempt to maximize the gains of a privileged minority. That being said the language was that of individual rights, which is something that goes beyond that privileged minority and into a principled ideology. So in a sense Marx and others of that time built upon liberalism and sometimes taking it more serious than it's original thinkers.

@Steve Also I think you're having it backwards here. Sure the rights provided aren't unique, what is somewhat unique is that they are seen as innate and universal. So you speak of rights you have "naturally", but naturally you don't have any rights at all. Rights are the result of a societal negotiation process between the ruler and the ruled. The fact that you think of some rights as so fundamental that they are off limits for negotiations is kinda the point

@Steve So the enlightenment challenged a lot of those earlier narratives that idk defended servitude by loyalty, by caste, by god given rules, by dogma of the church, by guild regulations etc. While liberalism challenged all of them breaking it down to the individual and whether that makes sense for them. That's probably hardly new and people likely did that intuitively long before but I guess spelling it out was.

@Steve Though sure "freedom" and "privilege" have a difficult relation. In that everyone regardless of stand can identify with the 1st while often enough that is just used as populist veneer to push for the 2nd. So many "classical liberals", "libertarians" and whatnot merely push for removing the regulations on the bosses rather than universal freedoms for everyone.

@Steve Same for "free speech". Yeah it's a reaction to suppressing organized revolts by suppressing organization and information. Yet at the same time it is also a means to organize against revolts, to spread misinformation and ensure tyranny. So "free speech" as an absolute freedom is destroying itself and doing a disservice to the idea of a universal right.

@Steve Because they'd need the material conditions to change the mode of production? Without industrial over production people are slaves to their work and their political abilities would be constraint by that. Yet in order to go from agrarian to industrialized you'd need either time, resources or assistance. So not really the leader of the revolution.

@Steve Also Marx and Engels thought that this was going to be a global revolution. That capitalism would destroy national borders. You know like how global companies are often not tied to one country but operate around the globe and shape political decisions to their will. So national self-reliance wouldn't need to be a problem for long as the global proletariat would change that. While it is a major problem if only 1 country revolutionizes.

@Steve Yes, but that's not really what Marx predicted, what would happen, did he? Also Lenin did NOT trigger a revolution in Tsarist Russia. Lenin's revolution prior to 1917 where unsuccessful so that he got himself imprisoned and exiled missing even the marginally successful revolutions of 1905 and 1917. It was only after the Tsar had abdicated that he was allowed to return and thus worked to take government from a nation already within a revolution

@Steve So it's not that he overthrew the tyrannic tsar, he rather overthrew a war torn nation on the brink of collapse and civil war undecided on how to move forward and he decided for them. Which is not really the mass movement, communism and not even the "soviet republic" idea of government where worker councils decide that.

@Steve I mean the social democrats tried to take the edge of the naked exploitation, improved working conditions and implemented universal voting rights and participatory democracies, established unions and whatnot. Thus creating this weird hybrid of self-exploitation where workers are both exploiters (reaping the taxes) and exploited, but where the economic owners try to play the game of democracy outside of parliament

@Steve While the populist anti-capitalism took largely a reactionary pretending that the greed of the capitalists or the capitalists themselves are the problem and that going back to a previous state (that probably never was) would solve the problems that capitalism created, ignoring the problems it solved with regards to that. And the USSR largely dressed up the exploitation but still didn't get rid of it.

@Steve Sure but are current liberal democracies still emblematic of what "democracies" looked like back then?

@Steve For the first part of the 20s the Soviet Union was in a civil war and had to restructure their economy to support that and afterwards Lenin implemented that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy so hardly a radically new system

@Steve Yes, though does that make a difference? On the contrary with respect to greed that often enough makes it worse, because the owner of a company has to present it with their own image and has to cultivate that publically, PR stunts, showing benevolence etc. While a CEO is contractually obligated to make profits and can refer to a collective of owners where they might even single out small investors as examples

The effect is the same they still exploit or company profits and their power still stems from their ability to most effectively exploit and also their benefit (bonus) relies on effective exploitation. The difference is just that they don't own the thing, their means of productions are insight into the company that can be used to help or harm it.

@Steve Why do you think it should aid the global rich? They aim to BE the global rich. Like they already spread their influence to other parts of the world and integrate colonies into their supply chain. That's no different business it's just a different player

The difference is just that they actually practice naked exploitation and superiority. Though they don't dress it in liberalism or free market ideologies, but in national socialism, which is neither what Marx hoped or who thought it would remain naked, nor is it what capitalists in the West were doing and with respect to historic relatives that's not something that ended well elsewhere.

@Steve How do you know that? Afaik the upper rank of the party pretty much always had a life detached from the reality of the people in their country that very much enriched themselves far beyond their peers. Maybe not as lavish as people in the West but very often far beyond anything that is reasonable for the GDP of their countries.

@Steve I mean in North Korea it's already regressed to hereditary monarchy. But even if that step is avoided building up a dedicated handpicked successor is quite common for authoritarian systems and if that is established the step to hereditary monarchies isn't far. Though while the game of thrones could still be open, it's nonetheless somewhat closed to the public isn't it?

@Steve The thing is "leadership of the proletariat" actually implies that people rule while still being workers, not that they have a working class background. I mean that's more than nothing, but usually as soon as they pick up government, they come into the manager caste of their respective system, largely dining with the heads of politics and upper class economy leaders, both because they share the same lifestyle and because that's what their job requires them to do.

transmission over, you may respond.