How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.
Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.
If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.
As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.
This isn’t a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.
Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can’t take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.
who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.
Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that’s not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).
In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.
On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist
I know you won’t read my reply, but I’ll answer anyway: it’s very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin’s successor.
Lenin and not Lukács
I studied Lenin in school.
I haven’t read Lukács. He wasn’t popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.
Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?
Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.
“György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with ‘Western Marxism,’ his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine.”
Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?
As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.
Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.
If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.
As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.
Removed by mod
This isn’t a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.
How’s this pragmatic action been working out for y’all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point.
Removed by mod
Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can’t take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.
who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.
Removed by mod
Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that’s not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).
In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.
I know you won’t read my reply, but I’ll answer anyway: it’s very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin’s successor.
I studied Lenin in school.
I haven’t read Lukács. He wasn’t popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.
Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.
“György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with ‘Western Marxism,’ his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine.”
Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?
Are they keen on thinking about private property and “the fundamental issue of private property from attention?”
Am I understanding you correctly?