200 Years together is a completely different book and an ex-wife as a single source is not enough for me.

Okay, let’s assume his storys in the Gulag books are fictipn. What is your general opinion on gulags under Stalin?

Have you read either Marx or Lenin?

Lenin wasn’t trying to erase that transition to communism is gradual, but instead correctly identified that the beginning of that transition is revolution, which Marxists at the time had erased from Marx. Dialectical materialism posits that there are revolutionary leaps after quantitative buildups, the transition to socialism is the beginning of the next long gradual process of achieving communism. He did not “force it under authoritarian boot heel,” but instead was the leader of the bolsheviks, a mass party chosen by the working claases.

Contrary to your position, Marxism-Leninism has successfully established socialism in many countries, and is so widely adopted by leftists partially because of its practical success. It’s the western leftists that endlessly move goalposts to invalidate socialism outside the west that results in perpetuation of bourgeois narratives surrounding socialism as it exists in real life.

Honestly, your appraisal of Lenin and Marx makes it come off as though you haven’t actually read either. Have you?

That is such a simplification that it is probably wrong.

Marx did not really concern himself with the ultimate goal of communism. His great achievement was his analysis of capitalism. Marx did not describe a slow evolution toward communism, but rather a process in which the contradictions he identified in capitalism culminate in revolution. No evolution! The few times he commented on communism, he described its prerequisites. He writes in the Communist Manifesto “In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”

Lenin’s approach was enormously successful in some respects. After the October Revolution, the USSR underwent unprecedented industrial development, which greatly improved the living conditions of most people. In general, the argument that “it has never worked before” is very problematic. For some strange reason, communist countries have always found themselves under massive attack from capitalist countries. For example, by Hitler’s Germany or the US. Inconceivable sums of money were invested by global capital and its states to show “that communism does not work.” If it really hadn’t worked, none of that would have been necessary. That still applies today. Lenin was a right-wing, authoritarian communist and was rightly criticized for this by people like Rosa Luxemburg. But economically, things were improving so rapidly that capitalist states became increasingly concerned. The fear was so great that capitalists in the US even agreed to the New Deal. Something similar happened in Europe.

ML does not stand for Marx and Lenin, but for Marxism-Leninism. A propagandistic self-description of the system of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Another word for it is Stalinism.

To be fair, I did sign up a long time ago. However, I do have reasons to stay in .ml. Here’s a response I posted elsewhere: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

To understand what you mean, is that seal winking? If so, are you saying that maybe I’m not being forthcoming or honest? I hope that you and I and everyone here can agree that we’re trying to understand what we’re all saying and where we all stand. I’m not being sarcastic or trying to hide anything.

Thanks for the straightforward response.

It sounds as if it’s clear that .ml admins are pro-Russia and pro-China. I understand you’re also asking if I’m making content-flow choices.

I think it’s worthwhile to interrogate where I stand in relation to .ml and my identity.

The way I see it, .ml does have posts that mourn aspects of countries like the USA and posts that recognize achievements of China. I’m not sure I’ve seen posts praising Russia, like at all, ever (if anything, I’ve seen posts critical of how Russia is a hyper-militaristic society).

I take this to mean that .ml is not indoctrinated in the way that many of my friends are. Some of my friends think that capitalism is perfectly ethical, and they sweep under the rug awful things about capitalism. They sweep under the rug how capitalism creates systemic inequality, how capitalism optimizes for accumulation instead of human flourishing, how capitalism is short-sighted in its investment strategies, how capitalism cannot create infinite growth in a contained system like planet Earth. I see these kinds of analyses in .ml. And I do not see them as much in other places.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying those analyses don’t exist elsewhere. However, I see .ml engaging with them much more. I could be wrong, and I’d be very interested if you can link to other communities that engage with things like, for example, classical economics instead of neoclassical or post-Keynesian economics. Anyway…

This might lead you to believe that I have a specific political project in mind that I’m supporting. And yeah, I believe in humanism, in human development, and in empathy-based ethics. However, I do not believe in static visions of the future. I do not think that there’s a Single Best Way Of Solving World Problems. I believe the world is a complex system and we need multiple simultaneous experiments at all levels to get more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

And what is it that I want? I want more acceptance of diversity and less hatred. I want more people working in good working conditions and less shitty workplaces. I want more equality of opportunities and less hoarding of privilege by the wealthy. I want more people out of poverty and less people stuck in the cycle of poverty. I want more investments that care about the long-term benefit of everyone and less investments that care about the short-term benefit of elites. I want more people who can choose what to do with their lives and less people stuck with what they’ve got in front of them.

So am I anti-USA and pro-China?

• If you tell me the story that the USA is lagging in healthcare compared to its rich-country counterparts, then I want less of that. Am I anti-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that the USA managed to be an innovation power-house for a century because of its entrepreneurial state, then I want more of that. Am I pro-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China has a demographic problem because of its gender imbalance, then I want less of that. Am I anti-China because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China is investing immensely in the development of green energy, then I want more of that. Am I pro-China because of that?

What I’m trying to say is that we have to look at reality with openness. I believe we should not stick to a simplistic story. I believe simplistic stories blind us to complexity and nuance. I believe we should not stick to easy stories such as “pro-USA” or “pro-China”. I believe we need to be able to break complex systems down and find what we want more of and what we want less of. I believe we then need to be able to accept that in complex systems we cannot know the end-state. I believe, instead, we need to try things out at multiple levels and see if we’re getting more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

So yeah, I see myself as someone who sees in .ml the kinds of analyses that I don’t see elsewhere. Of course, I’m open to alternatives and am curious about where you stand and what you believe.

Incorrect, on all counts. Communist parties derive their power from popular support from the working classes, as they themselves are working class. State violence is used against fascists, sabateurs, capitalists, and landlords. If they truly were a nobility concerned only with oppressing workers, then you have to prove why there was such dramatic improvements in social welfare, poverty eradication, key life metrics, studied Marxism and taught it in universities, and more. Certainly these would have been of no importance to a new ruling class?

You’re dramatically incorrect here.

The goal of posting what I posted was to let others see where I stand in relation to .ml and understand where others stand.

You said my post reads like an AI-generated response. But I can assure you I did not use AI at any point. Regardless, I think this is a moot point.

The more important point is what you think of my post’s ideas. Am I an example of the close-mindedness and zeal that you perceive? Or do you find me as someone with whom you can talk?

I would love to think that I’m someone with whom you can talk, but that is something you and others decide. Others decide if they stop the flow of meaning into the conversation or whether they flood and impose meaning into the conversation.

The best I can do is be present and open.

Democrats have a really important role in supporting the Palestinian genocide, what are you even talking about?

Do you think Biden was actually working tirelessly for a ceasefire? Come on. It’s a bipartisan project!

Same.

Now, explain why a “tankie” isn’t merely a leftist that failed one of your purity test.