That’s pretty much rainbow capitalism, which is but a small part of liberalism.

In reality, liberalism is much worse when it comes to things like human rights, singing it’s praises and championing democracy and freedom while committing/supporting atrocities, like Bill Clinton administration’s war crimes, Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq, EU’s anti-immigration barbarism, Trudeau’s arms sales, current Israel Palestine genocide, etc.

It’s baffling how many regular people call themselves liberal while not seeing the contradictions/utter hypocrisy. Even on ideological level, you can’t support things such as equality and free-market economics, they directly go against one another.

Not an anarchist but a revolutionary Marxist, and I don’t really have any Anarchist literature to share on this topic but here’s how I understand it:

Essentially, both Anarchism and Communism operate within “production for use”, which sees things being manufactured for use and to satisfy people’s needs rather than for profit as commodities to be sold on a market, and so this necessitates economic planning - after all, how else would the community know what and how many goods they need to produce/trade for?

Anarchist economic planning is done communally via local assemblies with them also communicating their productive capacities (like what they can make and the manpower) and needs they cannot fulfill locally with other communes, creating a regional federated network of sorts. These federations would then coordinate with other federations globally which is where all the transportation networks and production chains requiring continental and planetary integration get handled.

How I imagine this would play out in reality is essentially an order based system, where factories making certain component would make X amount of goods, ship them over to their next step of assembly where they would be further developed or turned into a complex finished product and distributed to the corresponding communities.

And to address some of the comments I see here - the whole idea of “everyone producing as a hobby” or “everyone does work only when they feel like it” is absolute bs and is a surefire way to peoples needs not being met. If you’ve been told that you need to produce something like 100 tools or 100kg of grain as your quota to meet the needs, then it doesn’t matter if you feel like it or not - you gotta produce it, especially if its an essential good like food. Do not be detached from reality voluntarist utopian, read economic books like Marx or Kropotkin and whoever else Anarchists have - ground your claims in coherent doctrine.

At least his critique is clear and coherent.

If validity of theory was based on what its writers had done, then Marx would be worthless and Urban Guerilla doctrine would be invaluable.

Trade and wage labor also aren’t exclusive to capitalism.

Yes, trade isn’t exclusive to capitalism, I never claimed otherwise. However, there is a distinction between commodity exchange for exchange-value (capitalist trade) and international distribution of goods to satisfy needs (socialist distribution), whether through planned allocation or transitional forms like labor vouchers.

Wage labor is specific to capitalism, it’s a sale of labor-power as a commodity, exchanged for a wage, with surplus value being appropriated by a class/managerial apparatus. This is THE fundamental relation of capitalism, and you’d be better off reading theory than blindly quoting it.

Though I will give a concession - socialism is such a meaningless term that it means like 4 different things depending on who says it: liberals would say it’s social democracy, ML’s say its state capitalism, Marxists and Leninists say it’s socialist mode of production (post-transition period) and Posadists would say it’s when nuclear annihilation. A word doesn’t make a thing so if you consider state capitalism to be socialist - fair, all power to you. However - Marxists, Leninists, Liberals would all collectively disagree. You did drop a Lenin quote to strengthen your argument so let me do the same:

• Lenin, The Tax in Kind

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

In the same text he also calls NEP USSR as state capitalist due to the concessions he had to make for the transition, which is explicitly made distinct from Socialism.

And I’m adamant that it’s a mischaracterization. Identifying the dominant mode of production is not a “one drop rule”, it’s literally foundational Marxist analysis - modes are defined by prevailing relations of production, not how it’s managed or ideological labels put onto them.

You’ve done a really good job misrepresenting my argument, keep it up.

That is another western chauvinist talking point.

Yeah, any critique of 3rd world communist countries is western chauvinism, therefore we should avoid looking at those countries through objective materialist perspective and uncritically support them just because they’re third-worldist - that’s something an imperialist crakkka like me should know.

That any development of industry (the primary task of countries who’ve just freed themselves from colonial rule), is a “betrayal” of socialism, because it didn’t go according to whatever the given critic laid out as sufficiently socialist enough, and that only the western critics of socialist countries have the correct plan.

I’d like you to point out where I said that industrialization is bad. The argument is literally about how the development was achieved and I concluded that it was through (state) capitalism and capitalist mode of production rather than socialism, even saying how it’s good that they managed to build up wealth. I explicitly didn’t moralize this either, this is literally how these countries materially functioned.

My critique also comes strictly from Marxism which is essentially the basis for communism regardless of culture, but sure.

China specifically can’t be called state capitalist in the slightest, considering that the CPC stands above the political system

You’re confusing political power with class relations, the key isn’t who holds political power but what social relations of production are. If a state (CPC controlled or otherwise) oversees an economy where wage labor, capital accumulation, commodity exchange persists, then it’s still state capitalism.

What no theory does to you.

Yeah, if you’re operating within Stalinist ML bubble. Just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s inherently “true”, and it can be healthy to read other communist sides/perspectives. Some recommendations would be Marx’s writings, Lenin, Bordiga if you want a lesser known but still respected Leninist who’s critical of ML’s/Stalinism.

No one claims magic here, and it’s true - a transitional DOTP period must happen, but it’s not a license to preserve the capitalist relations indefinitely. The fundamental relations of production that I’ve mentioned must be consciously dismantled over time as a precondition for socialism, that’s what the proletarian dictatorship is literally for. If not, then it’s only a matter of time until the state reverts to bourgeois control disguised as “socialist”.

Nationalizing capital while leaving value production intact leaves capitalism functionally preserved, read Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx where he makes this explicit - converting private to state property without abolishing wage labor/value mediation and calling it Socialism is literally Lassallean nonsense.

Capitalist production is not magically nullified by the presence of a party member or state shareholding either: workers still sell their labor-power, surplus value is still extracted, production is for market sale or in other words, capitalist mode of production prevails at full force. Legal oversight is a managerial form, not an abolition of class relations.

Meanwhile the success in question: The 3rd world communist countries have managed to more or less industrialize and build up wealth, but under (state) capitalist system with all the bells of whistles which are markets, commodity production, wage labor, etc. In other words, they used capitalism to build up wealth.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually think they had some absolutely amazing policies for the workers like free housing and social benefits, and good on them for building themselves up. However, this has nothing to do with socialism (socialist mode of production in this case) or communism as it was achieved via capitalism, the same system that drove colonialism.

I love how the conversation went from “all billionaires are bad eat the rich!!” to “hey this good billionaire is talking smack about a bad billionaire, time to defend them from criticism because they did good thing”

Doing nothing is praxis

First time I’m hearing of that but no, it’s mostly liberal progressive types here.

It’s the first time I see the transphobic original message, and honestly I’m not surprised to see it within ML community. In general, they and the ideology is already rather cultish given their beliefs and the shunning of “wrongthink”, but there’s a smaller subsection of ML’s who genuinely believe in this kind of reactionary chauvinism that’s a complete bastardization of Marxism.

There’s probably no one on this specific community who goes “hmm maybe there’s some merit to that statement”, but in case there is:

Trans people exist, and much like proletarians, their experience is shaped by our society and material conditions. They suffer through medical gatekeeping, discrimination and state violence among other things, all of them stemming from structures of capitalist domination, and just because occasionally some bourgeoisie opportunistically exploit these issues to garner support/profit from rainbow capitalism and the like, doesn’t mean you should go full reactionary.

If you’re torrenting and got some extra hard drive space, a good practice is to copy paste the game into another location and play for there. That way, you can modify or have the game update all you want without stopping seeding (as you need all original, unmodified files to seed), and you also have a backup in case something goes really wrong.

If an open world is just there for collectibles/unlocks or just feels otherwise unnecessary to the primary selling feature of the game (like story), then yeah its a hard pass.

Otherwise, if the open world is actually a core part of the game like in most MMO’s such as Old School Runescape, then it can be quite enjoyable.

50/50, you either guess it right or you dont

Banger

Pretty much, Russia has definitely earned the reputation even back when it was being “socialist” - it’s an imperialist hellhole, one that also meddles in today’s politics by funding far-right parties like AfD.

Though, I personally take issue when the russophobia doesn’t stop at targeting the state and its ruling class who made these decisions, but to the Russian working class as well, all of whom are getting exploited in the standard capitalist fashion but also a section being conscripted to kill and die for their ruling class benefit and their imperialist interests. That’s why it doesn’t feel right to me when a country targets Russian nationals with discriminatory laws in a fashion that’s not too different from 9/11’s treatment of Arab people that most of us can agree was wrong.

You personally wouldn’t travel back and forth, but this doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone - there were and still are a decent amount of Russian nationals working/living here with their families, distant or otherwise, still living back home in Russia/Belarus. No matter your nationality, you might want to go back to your home country and visit your family. What if there’s an emergency/funeral you have to attend after visiting? It might not be a valid reason to go back (given how vague the articles are), and you might lose your residence because of it. It’s only one example of course, but there definitely are more scenarios like this one.

Also, reading one of the news articles, counter-terrorism prevention isn’t even mentioned once, and it wouldn’t make sense given how I already outlined how it would be easier to get tools for terrorism locally, much safely too given how you don’t have to go through security that scrutinizes you more due to war-time, not to mention it doesn’t prevent terrorism from foreign agents who don’t own a residence here. If anything, the article mentions how these methods are there to further sanction Russia, to show solidarity to Ukraine and “limit specific Russian/Belarusian citizen rights”.

Religion is just one of the tools used to deprive people of human rights. Without this tool, they’d just pick another like “return to tradition” or “national values” or “anti-something measures” and use it as an excuse.

I dunno chat, as a Lithuanian (as if it matters) this feels like a bit of an over reach in a war on terror in US type of way. This isn’t the only law that explicitly targets Russians/Belarussians as a security threat that has been enacted.

These people are often just nationals, citizens of their country and not automatically foreign agents. If they were here doing espionage, they would report back using encrypted channels on the internet which is much cheaper than traveling back and forth. If they were smuggling tools for terrorism like bombs, it’s much easier to smuggle them over the border or even obtain them locally than having the foreign agent themselves smuggle.

I can’t help but view it as discriminatory in a similar way how Muslim and Arab populations were treated post-9/11, it just doesn’t make much sense unless I’m missing something.