@haxor789 what you're seeing with free speech and "misinformation", the problem is that liberals diagnose the problem as too much speech, rather than factors, unrelated to speech itself but to material economic conditions, that have eroded public trust and sown paranoia and fear.

Liberals are so obsessed with their control of the means of communication and propaganda, that they seem unable to believe that there is any controlling factor in the public mood besides propaganda.

Most obsess about the content of misinformation, rather than stepping back to appreciate that what is occuring is firstly merely loss of collective coherence and the emergence of somewhat random beliefs, and secondly that the ruling class are signalling what hurts them by squealing so hard, so people adopt those views (whether they be true or not) because they know they are harmful to those they want harmed.

Perhaps they imagined a revolution would somehow happen everywhere at once, with no geographic locality, but I don't see why they logically would have imagined that, or what factors would have coordinated it. I assume instead they assumed there would be a wave-front of revolution, spreading from a starting place.

Perhaps they naturally imagined proletarians in the most industrialised places would revolt first, but as I've said there were significant reforms between 1860 and 1920 that ameliorated exploitation somewhat for the proletariat in the most industrialised nations. Even America was locking it's doors to migrant workers by the 20th century. Liberalism was rolled back.

Marx and Engels would have said this is only delaying the inevitable under capitalism, but the point is that it explains why revolutions happened elsewhere first. Tsarist Russia was not only backward in industrial developmental terms, but serf relations were collapsing into slavery again, and by WW1 it was having to fight the advanced industrial economies too. That's why it snapped under the strain sooner.

There's nothing in this that fundamentally challenges Marx and Engels, because they'll just say capitalism will still enter crisis eventually due to its internal logic, even if revolution is forestalled in the meantime by concessions whilst the ruling class can still afford them.

@haxor789 I accept that characterisation of Lenin's role in Russia. I still can't see why this fact alone casts serious doubt on Marx though. Within his logic, he will just say the first-world proletariat has yet to revolt, not that capitalism has been permanently preserved from revolution

@haxor789 it appears they seek for China to control the world, not for the Chinese rich to join forces with the non-Chinese rich in assaulting workers everywhere (which is what Western liberals do). I know it's a subtlety but it concerns who has solidarity with who, and who exploits who.

The Chinese also have good reason to resist joining such liberalism, since it coincides with the severe weakening and regression of the West, whilst the Chinese nationalist policies have significantly grown Chinese strength and advanced it's development.

@haxor789 I'm not sure being an economic manager implies being outside the working class.

Even under capitalism, many managers are clearly workers not owners.

@haxor789, over, you may respond.

@Steve First of all how do you use the word "liberal" in that context? Like there are your classical liberals, there's post-enlightenment thinkers, there is the general vibe of plurality, of individual freedom, there are free market ideologues and so on. Apparently in the U.S: "liberal is even a pseudonym for left wing. So depending about the dichotomy or spectrum ranting against "the liberals" could easily mean you identify as much worse than that...

@Steve So in a sense liberalism is more or less inviting of speech, even to the point where it cuts upon the tree that it's sitting upon. So no "too much speech" isn't the problem, it's rather about content. Though you're not 100% off either, it's also a matter of perspective and economic conditions and a decentralized communication and the meetup of similar but not identical language usages can create a lot of confusion

@Steve That being said the problem is usually not that people talk too much the problem is that people talk to little and stay within their own bubbles which serve as filters for information which can distort reality and further hinder conversations with each other. And ironically for propaganda that is not a problem, it might even be helpful, it's the honest conversation of people that suffers from that.

Like propagandist have no problem if people live in their own reality and parse information through their bubble, they just deliver Barnum statements anyway. Also apparently the reactionary media of huge capitalists still seem to work, so despite being objectively wrong and hateful, bullshit is still broadcasted. Not on niche platforms but in "mainstream media".

@Steve Also this populist narrative of being against the ruling class is a powerful tool in organizing resistance, but in terms of a liberal democracy it's pretty misguided. Like are it really the democratic institutions that you can actively and passively elect, that you can hold accountable and demand transparency from, that you have legal and open pathways to change, that are the dangerous ruling class?

Like if anything people should protest people like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Bill Gates (and not for their charitable work, but for his software monopoly), should protest the power of google, apple, alibaba, temu, gasprom etc, who have tangible political influence without having any of that democratic oversight which applies to those democratic institutions.

But what people seem to fire at is liberalism, is democratic institutions. Rather then demanding participation they sheepishly follow reactionary demagogues that pretend to save them and who frame that in a language geared to express the opposite of what they are actually doing and pushing for.

So are those really the institutions that harm those people or are these the institutions that enable the people to do something about that harm? People are probably hurt for real, but what those populist narratives offer them is not political and economic participation but handouts and "revenge", taking their rage upon a scapegoat that happens to be the enemy of the people that actually have unchecked power... Nothing new, nothing praiseworthy, highly problematic.

@Steve I mean that's what Marx already argued that this globalization is/has already happened for the bourgeoise class and that the proletariat has to follow suit in order to be effective, hence the "workers of the world unite", that's why they created the international and whatnot. Though when the war came those parties often joined their national pride campaigns and Stalin won against Trotzky in terms of international vs national.

@Steve Because capitalism would create a global proletariat of people everywhere in the same conditions where they have nothing but their labor, who share the socio-economic conditions and would organize with each other. So idk solidarity strikes, coordinated revolutions etc. Also global companies already have global communication so the infrastructure is already present.

@Steve Though that didn't actually happen, you don't have a uniform global proletariat, you have a socio economic hierarchy in the world and you have a socio-economic hierarchy within a country. It's more like a fractal where you'll always have the same distribution within any group just that the absolute numbers are different. So in that sense Marx and Engels got it wrong

@Steve Again what liberalism? Like did they cut on free trade? No they cut on individual liberties. It becomes for authoritarian and nakedly oppressing.

@Steve Sure you could argue that those are just delaying factors and that the overall progress is still correct. But there's a reason people decades later called Marxism a pseudo-science, because it's missing the point. A great theory is meant to predict reality. If you constantly have to adjust it or have to retrofit results to the theory rather than predict outcomes, it's simply doing it wrong, it's working backwards from dogma. Which if Marx planned that as science is doing it a disservice

@Steve Also again Revolutions were according to Marx happening all the time everywhere, due to the fact that you have exploitation and different classes but for a communist revolution you need more than a communist party, you'd need an organized proletariat. Otherwise you'd do lower stage revolutions. Which is "ok", I mean you couldn't do better than what the material conditions allow for, but you're not progressing beyond that.

@Steve The point that would inevitably lead to communism is that the proletariat, is a) numerous b) in the same condition and c) that condition being that they are without means of production so they don't overpower their peers and don't benefit from that, they strive with and from community already.

@Steve No capitalism isn't revolution proof. On the contrary, however if the premise of Marx's arguments aren't even valid, this casts serious doubt on his conclusions and proposed methods. Like what he saw about the progression of history was based on a liberalist reading of said history, so he was already working on tainted data to some extend.

@Steve And you probably would have heard similar narratives from the leaders of the British Empire or any other Empire for that matter. "We're one team buddies and if we win that will be great for all of us (even if currently you suffer in this system)". However for the lived reality of the people in that system it feels more like a ruling class and a working class and a caste system of managers and thugs keeping people in line. Again nothing new.

@Steve Not sure about that like a global market and supply chain usually meant that the West had access to the majority of resources and stuff while the rest hadn't so usually that's a benefit rather than a weakness. Though apparently the West underestimates China's hostility to that system

@Steve They are more or less literally the aristocracy of our time. Ownership of the means of production isn't just entitlement to it, but also effective usage of it and often enough the CEO has more effective usage than the owner. Also at best they are a middle class, proving that there is more than proletariat and bourgeoisie and that we're not yet there. Either way trying to fit them in the Marxist model is having it backwards with regards to what a theory should do

@Steve dito

@haxor789 you're still missing the point. People aren't in bubbles. They have propaganda blared at them daily via the liberal media. What has varied, since 50 years ago, is how few people are now prepared to believe that propaganda.

The scope of what people disbelieve about what the media is telling them has increased massively, and it is not because liberal propaganda has become less effective or because opponents have become more effective. It is because the liberals are systematically assaulting people's economic security. And people respond to that by simply withdrawing trust and by promoting politics that causes destruction of the system which inflicts that condition upon them.

It's really that simple. The incoherence or absurdity of many people's political views, as well as the sheer variety of different nonsense, imbues them ultimately with more destructive potential, not less.

@haxor789 because they're being shafted by these institutions and by the people who come out the woodwork to defend them. The reason Trump is lauded, is simply because he makes his liberal enemies in both parties genuinely scream, and has the air of a man who is genuinely dangerous.

In a confrontation with the forces of liberalism, they want a man with that kind of indefatigable character, who will take personal risks and come out swinging. Trump has, pretty much, staked his entire freedom and fortune on his political agenda of confronting liberal control.

@haxor789 I'm confused about this claim that free trade remained whilst individual liberties receded. On the contrary, like with the legalisation of "combinations" and trade unions, free trade was rolled back and individual liberties for workers (not the rich) were thereby enhanced. That's just one example, but by the 20th century the wind really was blowing against the free trade that had immiserated workers through the 19th century. Mercantilism was in. Tariffs were in. Cartels were in.

This reached a pinnacle after WW2 when the liberal rich were utterly subjugated by the power of states which became more democratically accountable and responsive than ever, and through international coalitions (like the Bretton Woods scheme) almost completely deprived liberals of their ability to wage war on democratic state policies using market manipulations.

@haxor789 global markets only suit Western liberals, and benefit them, when they are able to use their control of military power to destroy superior alternative modes of organisation. When really forced to compete, they themselves drop the charade of free markets and adopt state power and political policy impositions.

@haxor789 I accept some senior managers are effectively a middle class, at least to the extent that their wages are so far in excess of their consumption needs, that they accumulate significant capital. But that's under liberalism, which promotes excess incomes amongst a minority. There's nothing inherent in the practical work of economic management that requires ownership or capital accumulation.

In terms of the Chinese bureaucrats, I'm unclear to what extent they are filling their boots with capital, but it's far from clear that they are.

There's an analogy with Stalin here. He was, clearly, a very powerful man in the USSR and in world affairs. But his material standard of living was not particularly extravagant, and he did not accumulate private economic assets or rent claims for himself or his family.

Moreover, as bureaucrats rather than bourgeoisie, they do not derive profits for themselves from attacking workers. The USSR had no capitalists who could reward bureaucrats with profits indirectly, and China has significant (if not perfect) controls on bureaucrats being captured by capitalists like this.

@haxor789, over.