Can you elaborate?

Are you trying to make the argument that Marxism isn’t Socialist? I think that’s a very silly argument, Marxism certainly isn’t Anarchist but it is Socialist. The USSR operated under Marxist notions of Socialism, based on public ownership and central planning, something the PRC is based on today (though with their own characteristics).

Why?

I’m aware of how the economy works, we all took econ 101 and many of us went beyond that. You need to stop feigning superiority and assuming a lack of education on anyone pushing back against what you’re saying.

I am too, though that would never happen in a million years.

We were always talking about execution. FOSS is regularly undermined and Credit Unions are almost always more local than otherwise.

I’m suggesting that the idea of creating a global credit union within the boundaries set by Capitalism, and carrying it to fruition, is far more difficult than revolution. You’re asking the absolute most wealthy individuals to sit by and watch their wealth dry up and to do nothing about it.

I think you should read the essay I linked.

Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I’ll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!

It was good that the Red Army defeated the Nazis.

The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you’re interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there’s no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.

I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don’t expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it’s worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.

Food for thought.

The reason countries abandon wealth taxation is because the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, doesn’t like it, and the justification is that it hurts the working class, the proletariat, even if that isn’t true.

I think it’s more about Socialism than taxation.

“Cuba’s democratic structure is X” does not provoke suspicion of what X is without reason. Further, there were other websites provided.

The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn’t need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.

So, the question in my opinion isn’t if the vanguard is necessary, it’s if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarchists want a fully horizontalized and decentralized network of cells such as cooperatives or communes. The Marxist critique of the Anarchist model is that that doesn’t actually abolish classes, as it turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie interested in the success of their own unit more than the global economy. This goal and critique precedes Lenin, and originates with Marx and Engels.

What are your thoughts on that?

I understand the concept, the problem is with implementing it from where we are now, and proving that energy would not be better applied via revolution and implementing Socalism. Your thought process is along the same lines as the Utopian Socialists like Owen, who tried to convince people but ultimatley failed. The reason Marxism has a much better track record is because of Scientific Socialism, which is based on analyzing how to get from here to there. I recommend reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Super cool from a games preservation perspective!

First off, it’s great that you’re thinking about things seriously, I don’t want to discredit that effort. However, there are several issues with this.

1. Revolution

Historically, revolution has happened in the Global South, and not merely by convincing the working class, but through organization. Look to how Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc all had revolutions, and you’ll see it was driven by sharpening contradictions in class antagonisms.

2. “Utopia”

Marxism rejects Utopianism, ie thinking of a model and trying to build it outright. Marxism requires revolution, yes, but takes a gradualist approach to collectivization once the revolution has happened. This is Scientific Socialism, which analyzes trajectories in Capitalism to predict what a Socialist society would look like.

3. FOSS

FOSS isn’t “Market Socialism.” It’s its own category of software that doesn’t rely on profit or competition.

4. Connecting all of the Credit Unions

How do you plan to go about such a monumental task? Most Credit Unions are local organizations, for local users. There isn’t a historical example of this happening.

5. Going from a unified Credit Union to charity

Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn’t be willing to or able to donate en mass.

For all of these reasons, this isn’t really a practical plan, which is why studying history and theory is important.

What’s wrong with their views on the vanguard?

Those can be good! But you really should read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they have some great works. Funny enough, Mao took a lot of inspiration from Anarchism as well, even though he was still a Marxist-Leninist.

Would require either revolution or threat of it to pass to a meaninful degree.