What you call #neoliberalism is late stage #capitalism, you can't have non-neoliberal capitalism, and you can't have a #socialdemocracy either.

As long as this myth of non-neoliberal capitalism exists things will only get worse. And the pseudo left of reformers and pseudo-#socialists have a large responsibility in reproducing this myth.

@aral

#marxism as religion bankrupted

The US elites are fighting with time against a demographic shift that is overdue. Inevitably this will be a political shift, affecting the UK Fr De Israel oligarchs (Anglo Saxons and Zionists united). The demographic shift in the US causes anglo-saxon-franco-zionists to become a minority in their own empire. Hence the brutal and abrupt hostility against rivals of this global hegemony, Russia, China, India, Islam.

#neoliberalism #marxism #totalitarianism
#Russia #China #India #BRICS

#Russian #Chinese #Iranian #Brazilian #SouthAfrican #Indian capitalists feeling pressure and hostility from the global banking cartel (Western Dominant Capital) were forced/reacted and are constructing capitalism #2

#Neoliberalism is the century long reorganization of capital at above and beyond state power, to something #classic #critical theory has failed to conceptualize and theorize on.
#marxism #anarchism #libertarian #communism

Capitalism is Cursed - Karl Marx

#capitalism #marxism #marx #karlmarx #wizard #curses

In a previous generation people learned in economics that the US never had a real national bank, but private banks made up what is called the National Reserve with only a spokesperson being chosen by the state.

In the next generation kids are wondering why the hell would there be a non-private bank, anywhere in the world.

Again, another development #Marxism failed to explain.

@SmudgeTheInsultCat

"The magazine’s distinctive illustrations, when Conroy and Hagglund could afford to print them, were key to both its regional aesthetics and democratic socialist philosophy. Nearly all illustrations are linoleum block prints and depict workers in an asymmetrical, primitivist style. One image from the May-June 1940 issue of New Anvil, John C. Rogers’s Working Class Mother, portrays a simply clothed woman standing arms akimbo on a country hill, her back turned to the viewer as she looks proudly at a sun either rising or setting. As in Conroy’s vivid description of his printer’s “cowbarn sanctum,” Rogers depicts the rural environment of the magazine’s imagined reader with respect but little romanticism. Ideologically, it signals a departure from the conventions dominant in Marxist aesthetics during the early 1930s. Instead of replicating socialist realism and representing the world revolution with depictions of workers united in victory or heading into battle, Working Class Mother equivocates on the state of socialism in the rural United States. It is unclear whether the sun in the illustration is rising, suggesting the coming revolution, or setting on a passing opportunity, perhaps registering that the anti-capitalist potential of the Depression decade was on the wane."

https://jacobin.com/2025/02/anvil-magazine-midwest-communism-conroy

#USA #Midwest #Missouri #Marxism #DemocraticSocialism #Socialism

РАЗРУШАЛИ ЛИ БОЛЬШЕВИКИ ИНСТИТУТ СЕМЬИ?



Недавно Путин высказался следующим образом:

«Теперь по поводу того, что изначально после 1917 года вся деятельность государства была направлена на разрушение семьи, — это не совсем так. ВНАЧАЛЕ ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО ТАК И БЫЛО. Это в примитивном виде излагалось как обобществление женщин, но у людей с примитивным социалистическим сознанием. А у элиты совсем по-другому, у элиты это было основано на положениях Маркса, Энгельса, в том числе на работе Энгельса „О семье, частной собственности и государстве“. В ней он писал, что если строгая моногамия является верхом добродетели, то, безусловно, пальму первенства нужно отдать ленточной глисте, где в 40 тысячах её члеников располагается и мужской, и женский аппараты, и она всю жизнь только тем и занимается, что совокупляется сама с собой. ВОТ НА ЭТОМ И БЫЛО ОСНОВАНО НА ПЕРВЫХ ПОРАХ, ПОСЛЕ 1917 ГОДА, ОТНОШЕНИЕ К СЕМЬЕ. То есть свободная любовь пропагандировалась и практиковалась. Но позднее, мы знаем, как на парткомах и месткомах рассматривались семейные дела, как боролись за сохранение семьи. Это уже была совсем другая история. Так что и по ходу развития советского общества, и по ходу развития институтов государства отношение к семье тоже менялось. И здесь всё-таки с Вами трудно согласиться, что весь этот период всё было направлено на разрушение семьи. Мне кажется, что слишком радикально Вы высказались».

Аналогичную чепуху распространяют и на научных кафедрах, и в патриотических газетёнках. Ложь — принцип работы буржуазной пропаганды.

Нельзя не отметить, что фрагмент работы Энгельса с ленточной глистой так глубоко западает в душу всем филистерам, что кроме него они ничего не запоминают в работе классика. Тогда как в данном случае Энгельс высмеивает нелепые аргументы буржуазных «учёных», которые ВЫВОДИЛИ ИЗ МОНОГАМИИ ЖИВОТНОГО МИРА МОНОГАМИЮ ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКОЙ СЕМЬИ. Если бы Владимир Владимирович читал Энгельса внимательно, то чуть ниже он бы заметил следующие слова:

«Хотя сообщества животных и имеют известную ценность для ретроспективных умозаключений относительно сообществ людей, но эта ценность только негативная. У высших позвоночных животных известны, насколько мы знаем, лишь две формы семьи: многоженство и сожительство отдельными парами; в обоих случаях допускается лишь один взрослый самец, лишь один супруг. Ревность самца, одновременно скрепляющая и ограничивающая семью животных, приводит ее в противоречие со стадом; из-за этой ревности стадо, более высокая форма общения, в одних случаях прекращает свое существование, в других утрачивает сплоченность или распадается на время течки, а в лучшем случае задерживается в своем дальнейшем развитии. Одного этого достаточно для доказательства, что СЕМЬЯ ЖИВОТНЫХ И ПЕРВОБЫТНОЕ ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО — ВЕЩИ НЕСОВМЕСТИМЫЕ, что первобытные люди, выбиравшиеся из животного состояния, или совсем не знали семьи, или, самое большее, знали такую, какая не встречается у животных».

Теперь посмотрим как большевики «разрушали семью».

Так, 18 декабря 1917 года был принят:

«Декрет о гражданском браке, о детях и о ведении книг актов состояния.

Российская Республика впредь признает лишь гражданские браки.

Гражданский брак совершается на основании следующих правил:

I. Лица, желающие вступить в брак, словесно объявляют или подают о том, по месту своего пребывания, письменное заявление в отдел записей браков и рождений при городской (районной, уездной или волостной земской) управе.

Примечание. Церковный брак, наряду с обязательным гражданским, является частным делом брачущихся.

II. Заявления о желании вступить в брак не принимаются: а) от лиц мужского пола ранее 18 лет, а женского — 16 лет от рождения. В Закавказье туземные жители могут вступать в брак по достижении женихом 16 лет, а невестою 13 лет; б) от родственников по прямой линии, полнородных и не полнородных братьев и сестер, — причем наличность родства признается также между внебрачным ребенком и его потомством с одной стороны и его отцом и его родственниками — с другой; в) от состоящих в браке, и г) от умалишенных.

III. Желающие вступить в брак являются в отдел записей браков и дают подписку в отсутствии перечисленных в ст. 2 сего декрета препятствий для вступления в брак, а также подписку в том, что они вступают в брак добровольно. Виновные в даче заведомо ложных показаний об отсутствии препятствий, перечисленных в ст. 2, привлекаются к уголовной ответственности за ложное показание, а сам брак их признается недействительным.

IV. По отобрании выше предусмотренной подписки, заведующий отделом записей браков заносит событие брака в книгу записей браков и затем объявляет брак вступившим в законную силу. При вступлении в брак бракосочетающимся предоставляется свободно определить, будут ли они впредь именоваться фамилией мужа или жены или соединенною фамилией.

В удостоверение события брака, брачущимся выдается незамедлительно копия свидетельства об их браке.

V. Жалобы на отказ в совершении брака или на неправильности записи приносятся, без ограничения срока, местному судье по месту отдела записей браков; определение же местного судьи по таковой жалобе может быть обжаловано в общем порядке.

VI. В случае, если прежние книги записей брака были уничтожены или иным путем погибли, или если по иной причине состоящие в браке лица не имеют возможности получить выпись о своем бракосочетании, — этим лицам предоставляется право подать заявление в соответствующий, по месту жительства обоих супругов или одного из них отдел записей браков о том, что они состоят в браке с такого-то времени. Такое заявление, подтвержденное, сверх подписки, предусмотренной ст. 4‑й сего декрета, еще подпискою супругов в том, что книга записей действительно погибла, или что они по иной уважительной причине не могут получить выписки о браке, служит основанием для записи брака вновь и для выдачи о том копии свидетельства.

О детях.

VII. Запись о рождении ребенка составляется тем же отделом записей браков и рождений по месту пребывания матери, причем о каждом рождении в книге записей рождений совершается особая запись.

VIII. О рождении ребенка отделу обязаны объявить или его родители, или один из них, или лица, на попечении коих, за смертью родителей, остался новорожденный, с указанием присвояемых ребенку имени и фамилии и с представлением двух свидетелей в удостоверение события рождения.

IX. Как книги записей браков, так и книги записей рождений, ведутся в 2‑х экземплярах, причем один экземпляр по окончании года пересылается для дальнейшего храпения -в соответствующий суд.

X. Дети внебрачные уравниваются с брачными относительно прав и обязанностей как родителей к детям, так и детей к родителям.

Отцом и матерью ребенка записываются лица, подавшие о том заявление и давшие соответствующую в том подписку.

Виновные в даче заведомо ложных показаний по содержанию сего привлекаются к уголовной ответственности за ложное показание, а сама запись признается недействительной. В случае неподачи отцом внебрачного ребенка указанного выше заявления, матери ребенка, опекуну его или самому ребенку предоставляется право судебным порядком доказать отцовство».

И где же тут «разрушение семьи»?

Более того, на следующий день был принят декрет о расторжении брака, а 18 сентября 1918 года принимается полноценный кодекс «Законов об актах гражданского состояния, брачном, семейном и опекунском праве».

Вместо уничтожения, разрушения, запрещения БОЛЬШЕВИКИ РАЗВИВАЮТ ИНСТИТУТ СЕМЬИ, ПРОВОЗГЛАСИВ СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКУЮ СЕМЬЮ ВЫСШИМ ТИПОМ СЕМЬИ.

В 1926 году был принят новый кодекс. Наиболее существенным нововведением этого кодекса было придание правового значения фактическим брачным отношениям. Придавалось решающее значение не факту регистрации брака, а взаимному соглашению сторон. Важнейшим доводом в пользу придания правового значения фактическим брачным отношениям были статистические данные, свидетельствовавшие о том, что в незарегистрированных браках (их общее число составляло около 7% от всех браков), как правило, состояли женщины из наименее обеспеченных слоев населения, особенно нуждавшиеся в правовой защите. Часто такие женщины, брошенные фактическим супругом, оставались без средств к существованию, поскольку ни права на имущество, ни права на взыскание алиментов по закону не имели. Второй важнейшей новацией была замена режима раздельности супружеского имущества режимом общности. Это обосновывалось тем, что принцип раздельности не давал женщинам, не имевшим источника доходов, права на имущество семьи, поскольку всё имущество приобреталось на доходы мужа.

Ну и повышение возраста для женщин по понятным причинам.

Это и есть разрушение семьи? Почитайте внимательно, убедитесь, что Путин и научные работники буржуазной кафедры, пишущие про разрушение семьи, НАГЛО ВРУТ.

Или для Путина и ему подобных «разрушение семьи» это низвержение порядка правового неравенства в семье? Действительно, ведь в своде законов Российской империи указывалось, что «жена обязана повиноваться мужу своему, как главе семейства; пребывать нему в любви, почтении и в неограниченном послушании, оказывать ему всякое угождение и привязанность…» — вот такую семью Советская власть уничтожила путём отрицания, то есть развития всего положительного и отбрасывания всего реакционного. В строгом соответствии с диаматикой.

Кстати говоря, вопрос о равноправии женщин обсуждался в I, II и III Государственных думах, но так и не получил разрешения. Царское правительство упорно сопротивлялось распространению на женское население даже тех куцых гражданских прав, которые оно вынуждено было провозгласить земской реформой 1864 г. и Манифестом 17 октября 1905 г. Такое отношение к женщине было присуще не только царскому правительству и господствующим классам, но и значительной части трудящегося населения, особенно в деревне.

Женское неравноправие усугублялось огромным разрывом между общепризнанными достижениями передовой русской культуры того времени и духовной жизнью большинства населения, прозябавшего в темноте и невежестве. Дореволюционная Россия была страной массовой неграмотности. Особенно много неграмотных было среди женщин. По проведенному в 1908 — 1913 гг. обследованию в 12 губерниях европейской России, неграмотность сельского женского населения составляла от 74,1 (Московская губерния) до 95,2% (Пензенская губерния). Даже в Москве в 1912 г. 43,4% женщин не умели читать и писать.

Придумали вышеобозначенный пропагандистский миф о том, что большевики уничтожали семью, вовсе не путины. Ещё русско-германский буржуа Менерт писал:

«Большевики сразу же после революции повели борьбу с семьей… И все же русские, не будучи сверхцивилизованным народом, и поныне сохраняют еще, несмотря на все, что им пришлось пережить в последние десятилетия, естественную склонность к упорядоченным половым отношениям… Это не значит, что они (коммунисты) преодолели свою внутреннюю неприязнь к семье. Для них семья — это бельмо на глазу, и не только из-за ее консервативности. Их раздражает уже само существование этого единственного в стране не контролируемого ими института, самобытной и замкнувшейся в себе ячейки, инородного тела в государстве, которое во всех остальных отсеках контролируется сверху донизу».

Дадим краткий обзор марксистской позиции по семье на первой фазе коммунизма.

В одной из своих ранних работ, «К критике гегелевской философии права» (1843), К. Маркс писал:

«Лишь в гражданском обществе семейная жизнь становится жизнью семьи, жизненным проявлением любви. Сословие же землевладения представляет собой, напротив, варварство частной собственности против семейной жизни».

В первом в истории проекте программы коммунистов, составленном Энгельсом, «Принципах коммунизма» (1847) — в ответ на утверждения таких вот путиных XIX века, будто коммунисты хотят ввести общность жен, говорилось:

«Общность жен представляет собою явление, целиком принадлежащее буржуазному обществу и в полном объеме существующее в настоящее время в виде проституции. По проституция основана на частной собственности и исчезнет вместе с ней. Следовательно, коммунистическая организация вместо того, чтобы вводить общность жен, наоборот, уничтожит ее».

Этот тезис повторен и в «Коммунистическом манифесте» и в работе Энгельса «Происхождение семьи, частной собственности и государства», которой козырнул Владимир Владимирович.

О «планах» марксизма в отношении брака и семьи говорится следующее:

«Как только отпадут экономические соображения, вследствие которых женщины мирились с этой обычной неверностью мужчин, — забота о своем собственном существовании и еще более о будущности детей, — так достигнутое благодаря этому равноправие женщины, судя по всему прежнему опыту, будет в бесконечно большей степени способствовать действительной моногамии мужчин, чем полиандрии женщин».

Ленин писал, что марксизм противопоставляет проституированной буржуазной семье, распущенности и мимолётным связям «пролетарский гражданский брак с любовью».

Кроме того, Ленин решительно протестует против вульгаризации вопроса:

«Отношения между полами не являются просто выражением игры между общественной экономикой и физической потребностью. Было бы не марксизмом, а рационализмом стремиться свести непосредственно к экономическому базису общества изменение этих отношений самих по себе, выделенных из общей связи их со всей идеологией».

Таким образом, У МАРКСА, ЭНГЕЛЬСА, ЛЕНИНА НЕТ ДАЖЕ НАМЕКА НА ОТРИЦАНИЕ ИНСТИТУТА СЕМЬИ. Они отвергали лишь собственническую семью и торгашеский брак по расчету, требовали освобождения брачно-семейных отношений от извращающей их власти собственности и денег, боролись за равноправие женщин с мужчинами и за то, чтобы семья основывалась на любовных отношениях.

НИКТО В МИРЕ НЕ СДЕЛАЛ ДЛЯ ЛЮБВИ БОЛЬШЕ, ЧЕМ БОЛЬШЕВИКИ, ПОТОМУ ЧТО ИМЕННО ПРИ СОВЕТСКОЙ ВЛАСТИ ТРУДЯЩИЕСЯ БЫЛИ ОСВОБОЖДЕНЫ ОТ ГНЁТА КАПИТАЛА, ОСВОБОЖДАЛИСЬ ОТ ПОРОЧНОСТИ ТОВАРНО-ДЕНЕЖНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙ, В ТОМ ЧИСЛЕ ПОСРЕДСТВОМ ТОГО, ЧТО КАЖДЫЙ ЖИТЕЛЬ СССР ПОЛУЧАЛ ЖИЛЬЁ И РАБОТУ, А ЗНАЧИТ БЫЛ СВОБОДЕН ДЛЯ ВЫСТРАИВАНИЯ ОТНОШЕНИЙ НА ОСНОВЕ ВЫСШИХ ПРОЯВЛЕНИЙ ЛИЧНОСТИ — ДРУЖБЫ И ЛЮБВИ. СТРАНА ЛЮБВИ НАЗЫВАЛАСЬ СССР!

Персонально Коллонтай и другие отдельные писатели, которых и обсасывают всякие современные «учёные», были носителями вульгарных взглядов на семью. Их взгляды в политике большевиков не претворялись. В СССР издавалось много различной литературы, очень многие видные деятели, в том числе занимая высокие государственные и партийные посты, выступали в печати с ошибочными взглядами по разным вопросам, особенно в 1920-е, когда был настоящий разгул троцкизма и полутроцкизма во всех областях.

Все эти декреты о национализации женщин и заповеди половых отношений — фальшивки или дурацкие левые кривляния молодежи. Ленин по поводу левачества в этих вопросах говорил:

«Вы, конечно, знаете знаменитую теорию о том, что будто бы в коммунистическом обществе удовлетворить половые стремления и любовную потребность так же просто и незначительно, как выпить стакан воды. От этой теории „стакана воды“ наша молодежь взбесилась, прямо взбесилась. Эта теория стала злым роком многих юношей и девушек. Приверженцы ее утверждают, что теория эта марксистская. Спасибо за такой „марксизм“…».

Подобные теории раздували провокаторы и идиоты от левой фразы: троцкисты, анархисты и другие враги рабочего движения. Они и легли в основу буржуазной мифологии по этому вопросу.



#Russia #USSR #soviet #russian #history #family #bolsheviks #socialism #communism #marxism #Lenin #lang_ru #СССР #история

DID THE BOLSHEVIKS DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY?



Putin recently expressed himself as follows:

“Now regarding the fact that initially after 1917 all the activities of the state were aimed at the destruction of the family - this is not quite true. IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS INDEED SO. It was presented in a primitive form as the generalization of women, but to people with a primitive socialist consciousness. And the elite had a completely different idea, the elite had it based on the provisions of Marx, Engels, including Engels' work “On the Family, Private Property and the State”. In it he wrote that if strict monogamy is the top of virtue, then, of course, the palm of superiority should be given to the tapeworm, where in 40 thousand of its members there are both male and female apparatuses, and it spends its whole life only copulating with itself. THAT'S WHAT THE ATTITUDE TO THE FAMILY WAS BASED ON AT FIRST, AFTER 1917. That is, free love was promoted and practiced. But later, we know how family matters were considered at party committees and local committees, how they fought for the preservation of the family. It was already a completely different story. So as Soviet society developed, and as the institutions of the state developed, the attitude to the family also changed. And here, however, it is difficult to agree with you that everything during this period was aimed at destroying the family. It seems to me that you have expressed yourself too radically.

Similar nonsense is spread in scientific departments and in patriotic newspapers. Lies are the working principle of bourgeois propaganda.

It should not be overlooked that the fragment of Engels' work with the tapeworm is so deeply ingrained in the soul of all philistines that they do not remember anything in the work of the classicist except it. Whereas in this case Engels ridicules the ridiculous arguments of the bourgeois “scientists” who DETERMINE FROM THE MONOGAMY OF THE ANIMAL WORLD THE MONOGAMY OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. If Vladimir Vladimirovich had read Engels carefully, he would have noticed the following words just below:

“Although animal communities have some value for retrospective inferences about human communities, this value is only negative. In the higher vertebrates there are, so far as we know, only two forms of family known: polygamy and cohabitation in separate pairs; in both cases only one adult male, only one consort, is allowed. The jealousy of the male, which at the same time strengthens and limits the animal family, brings it into conflict with the herd; because of this jealousy the herd, a higher form of socialization, in some cases ceases to exist, in others loses its cohesion or disintegrates during heat, and at best is delayed in its further development. This alone is sufficient to prove that the FAMILY OF ANIMALS AND THE PERFECT HUMAN SOCIETY ARE IMPOSSIBLE THINGS, that primitive men, emerging from the animal state, either did not know a family at all, or, at most, knew one which is not found in animals.”

Now let's look at how the Bolsheviks “destroyed the family.”

Thus, on December 18, 1917 it was adopted:

“Decree on civil marriage, on children and on the keeping of registry books.

The Russian Republic shall henceforth recognize only civil marriages.

Civil marriage shall be performed on the basis of the following rules:

I. Persons wishing to marry shall verbally announce or submit a written application to the department of marriage and birth records at the city (district, county or volost zemstvo) administration at the place of their residence.

Note. Church marriage, along with compulsory civil marriage, is a private affair of the marrying couple.

II. Applications for marriage are not accepted: a) from males earlier than 18 years of age, and from females - 16 years of birth. In Transcaucasia, natives may marry when the groom is 16 years old and the bride is 13 years old; b) from relatives in the direct line, full-blooded and not full-blooded brothers and sisters, and the existence of kinship is also recognized between a child born out of wedlock and his offspring on the one hand and his father and his relatives on the other; c) from married persons, and d) from insane persons.

III. Those wishing to marry shall come to the marriage registry office and sign that there are no obstacles to marriage listed in Article 2 of this decree and that they are entering into marriage voluntarily. Those guilty of knowingly giving false testimony that there are no obstacles listed in Article 2 shall be held criminally liable for false testimony, and their marriage shall be declared null and void.

IV. Upon taking the aforementioned signature, the head of the marriage record department shall enter the event of the marriage in the marriage record book and then declare the marriage to be valid. At the time of marriage, the married couple is free to determine whether they will henceforth be called by the surname of the husband or wife or by a joint surname.

As proof of the marriage, the couple shall immediately receive a copy of their marriage certificate.

V. Complaints against the refusal to perform a marriage or against irregularities in the record shall be filed, without time limit, with the local judge at the place of the marriage record office; the local judge's ruling on such a complaint may be appealed in general.

VI. If the former marriage record books have been destroyed or otherwise perished, or if for any other reason the married persons are unable to obtain a record of their marriage, these persons are entitled to file a statement with the appropriate marriage record office in the place of residence of both spouses or one of them that they have been married since such and such a time. Such a statement, confirmed, in addition to the subscription provided for in Article 4 of this decree, by the signature of the spouses that the marriage record book has indeed perished or that they are unable to obtain extracts of the marriage for any other valid reason, shall serve as the basis for recording the marriage again and for issuing a copy of the certificate.

About children.

VII. The birth of a child shall be recorded by the same marriage and birth records department at the place of residence of the mother, and a special entry shall be made for each birth in the book of birth records.

VIII. The birth of a child must be announced to the department either by the parents or by one of them, or by the persons in whose care the newborn child has remained after the death of the parents, indicating the name and surname to be given to the child and presenting two witnesses to certify the event of birth.

IX. Both the books of marriage records and the books of birth records shall be kept in 2 copies, one copy of which shall be sent to the appropriate court for further storage at the end of the year.

X. Children born out of wedlock shall be equalized with married children with respect to the rights and duties of both parents to their children and children to their parents.

The father and mother of the child shall be registered by the persons who have applied for and subscribed to it.

Those guilty of knowingly giving false testimony on the contents of this statement shall be held criminally liable for false testimony, and the record itself shall be declared invalid. If the father of a child born out of wedlock fails to submit the above statement, the mother of the child, his guardian or the child himself shall have the right to prove paternity by judicial procedure.

And where is the “destruction of the family” in this?

Moreover, the next day a decree on the dissolution of marriage was adopted, and on September 18, 1918 a full-fledged code of “Laws on acts of civil status, marriage, family and guardianship law” was adopted.

Instead of destruction, destruction, prohibition, the BOLSHEVIKS DEVELOPED THE INSTITUTE OF THE FAMILY, PROVOSING THE SOCIALIST FAMILY A HIGH TYPE OF FAMILY.

In 1926, a new code was adopted. The most significant innovation of this code was to give legal significance to the actual marriage relationship. It was not the fact of registration of the marriage, but the mutual agreement of the parties that was decisive. The most important argument in favor of giving legal significance to de facto marital relations was statistical data showing that unregistered marriages (their total number amounted to about 7% of all marriages) usually consisted of women from the least wealthy strata of the population, who were particularly in need of legal protection. Often such women, abandoned by their de facto spouse, were left without means of subsistence, since they had neither the right to property nor the right to alimony under the law. The second major innovation was the replacement of the regime of separation of marital property with a regime of community. This was justified by the fact that the principle of separation did not give women who had no source of income the right to the family property, since all property was acquired with the husband's income.

And raising the age for women for obvious reasons.

Is this the destruction of the family? Read carefully, make sure that Putin and the scientific workers of the bourgeois department, writing about the destruction of the family, are blatantly lying.

Or for Putin and his kind “destruction of the family” is the overthrow of the order of legal inequality in the family? Indeed, in the code of laws of the Russian Empire it was stated that “a wife is obliged to obey her husband as the head of the family; to remain in love, honor and unlimited obedience to him, to give him every pleasure and affection...”. - This is the kind of family that the Soviet power destroyed by negation, i.e. by developing everything positive and discarding everything reactionary. In strict accordance with diamatics.

By the way, the question of equal rights for women was discussed in the I, II and III State Dumas, but was never resolved. The tsarist government stubbornly resisted extending to the female population even those meager civil rights which it was forced to proclaim by the zemstvo reform of 1864 and the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. This attitude toward women was inherent not only in the tsarist government and the ruling classes, but also in a large part of the working population, especially in the countryside.

Women's inequality was aggravated by the huge gap between the generally recognized achievements of the advanced Russian culture of the time and the spiritual life of the majority of the population, which lived in darkness and ignorance. Pre-revolutionary Russia was a country of mass illiteracy. Especially many illiterates were among women. According to a survey conducted in 1908-1913 in 12 provinces of European Russia, the illiteracy of the rural female population ranged from 74.1 (Moscow Province) to 95.2% (Penza Province). Even in Moscow in 1912. 43.4% of women could not read and write.

The above propaganda myth that the Bolsheviks destroyed the family was not invented by the Putins. Even the Russian-German bourgeois Menert wrote:

“The Bolsheviks immediately after the revolution waged a struggle against the family... And yet Russians, not being a super-civilized people, still retain today, despite all that they have had to endure in recent decades, a natural inclination to orderly sexual relations... This does not mean that they (the Communists) have overcome their inner dislike of the family. For them, the family is an eyesore, and not only because of its conservatism. They are irritated by the very existence of this one institution in the country that is not controlled by them, an original and self-contained unit, a foreign body in the state, which in all other compartments is controlled from top to bottom”.

Let us give a brief overview of the Marxist position on the family in the first phase of communism.

In one of his early works, “Toward a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right” (1843), K. Marx wrote:

“Only in civil society does family life become the life of the family, the vital manifestation of love. The landed estates, on the contrary, represent the barbarism of private property against family life”.

In the first ever draft of the Communist program, compiled by Engels, “The Principles of Communism” (1847) - in response to the assertions of such 19th century poutines, as if the Communists wanted to introduce the community of wives, it was stated:

“The community of wives is a phenomenon that belongs entirely to bourgeois society and exists in its entirety at the present time in the form of prostitution. Prostitution is based on private property and will disappear with it. Hence, the communist organization, instead of introducing the community of wives, will, on the contrary, destroy it”.

This thesis is repeated both in the “Communist Manifesto” and in Engels' work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, which Vladimir Vladimirovich trumped.

It says the following about Marxism's “plans” for marriage and family:

“As soon as the economic considerations, as a consequence of which women put up with this usual infidelity of men, - the concern for their own existence and even more so for the future of children - fall away, so the equality of woman, achieved thanks to this, will, judging by all previous experience, contribute to an infinitely greater extent to the actual monogamy of men than to the polyandry of women.”

Lenin wrote that Marxism contrasts the prostituted bourgeois family, promiscuity, and fleeting liaisons with “proletarian civil marriage with love.”

Furthermore, Lenin strongly protests against the vulgarization of the question:

“The relations between the sexes are not a mere expression of the play between social economy and physical need. It would not be Marxism but rationalism to seek to reduce directly to the economic basis of society the change of these relations in themselves, isolated from their general connection with the whole ideology.”

Thus, Marx, Engels and Lenin had not even a hint of rejection of the institution of the family. They rejected only the possessive family and the mercantile marriage of convenience, demanded the liberation of marriage and family relations from the power of property and money that perverted them, fought for the equality of women with men and for the family to be based on loving relationships.

NO ONE IN THE WORLD DID MORE FOR LOVE THAN THE BOLSHEVIKS, BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER SOVIET RULE THAT WORKERS WERE FREED FROM THE OPPRESSION OF CAPITAL, FREED FROM THE VICIOUSNESS OF COMMODITY-MONEY RELATIONS, INCLUDING THROUGH THE FACT THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF THE USSR RECEIVED HOUSING AND WORK, AND THUS WAS FREE TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON THE HIGHEST MANIFESTATIONS OF PERSONALITY - FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE. THE COUNTRY OF LOVE WAS CALLED THE SSSR!

Personally, Kollontai and other individual writers, whom all sorts of modern “scholars” are pontificating about, were carriers of vulgar views on the family. Their views were not implemented in the Bolsheviks' policy. A lot of different literature was published in the USSR, many prominent figures, including those holding high government and party positions, spoke in the press with erroneous views on various issues, especially in the 1920s, when there was a real rampant Trotskyism and semi-trotskyism in all areas.

All those decrees on nationalization of women and commandments of sexual relations are fake or stupid leftist cranks of the youth. Lenin on the subject of leftism in these matters said:

“You know, of course, the famous theory that it is as if in Communist society to satisfy sexual aspirations and love needs is as simple and insignificant as drinking a glass of water. From this “glass of water” theory, our youth became furious, downright furious. This theory has become the evil doom of many young men and women. Its adherents claim that this theory is Marxist. Thank you for such 'Marxism'...”.

Such theories were fanned by provocateurs and idiots from the left: Trotskyists, anarchists and other enemies of the labor movement. They formed the basis of bourgeois mythology on this question.



#Russia #USSR #soviet #russian #history #family #bolsheviks #socialism #communism #marxism #Lenin #lang_en #СССР #история

#Marxism does not have any problems with industrial development, but only with who owns and controls industrial development.

#Marxists don't condemn industrial development controlled by #oligarchy as long as that oligarchy is the same as that of the party.

#Marx & #Engels if alive again they would waste their second lives criticizing the clergy built around #Marxism and their interpretive idealism, against any critical thought and materialism.

#1stInternational revisited

I've been reading a little anarchist material lately, scholarly stuff centred around Iain M. Banks' CULTURE novels. I'm finding I have the same reaction to it as I do Marxist material: this hot stuff, great tools for critiquing power, and some new ways of looking at the world that will inform my politics.

#anarchism #anarchy #anarchist #IainMBanks #TheCultureNovels #TheCulture #poli #politics #PoliSci #Marxism #Marx #socialism #communism

Fediverse the ultimate neoliberal social engineering experiment

Where private ownership provides absolute freedom and lack there of is sentence to #slavery and submission to masters

Before you execute the messenger just consider a scenario then be as critical as you want, as long as criticism is based on rational arguments, not emotional metaphysics and characterizations!

Say you write a little book, you find a publisher that is cheap and quick and you only have enough to print 100 copies, and you sell them basically at cost. 100 people buy them, read them, pass them around, before you know it your ideas have been exposed to more than 1000 people. But lets also say the printer through some clause in the agreement can buy them all back, at face value, and then destroys them. In the fire all markings, comments, notes written by readers are also gone. Furthermore the printer can take legal action against anyone making reference to the ideas on the book.

#FEDIVERSE

No rules, but the servers’ owner’s discretion. No rights, just conditional access and entry to the guestrooms. Server owners are never accountable for material, ideas, arguments, documents, ever hosted, they can make them all vanish.

#Accountability #Federation Rules #Judicial System ? NONE.

To write a document, to explain an idea, to analyze a topic, to make a thesis public, or simply to express an opinion, take work, and work has some value, it can’t all be a waste of time. In physical world expressing an idea in public to whoever is listening is prohibited in the most oppressive and totalitarian regimes. Once an idea is shared it is no longer the property of the person that expressed it, it is shared by all those who have heard the idea. In #Fediverse “the owner” of the space where expression takes place is in the absolute discretion of the host. There are no repercussions for any owner removing a participant, blocking one’s access, even when shared expressions come from other servers, and deleting all content. And by deleting the initial content the rest of the participatns’ comments vanish as well.

#Fediverse, is the ultimate virtual simulation of an absolute and TOTAL neoliberal world. There is not a square millimeter that is public, it is all privately owned, and the rules are indicative, they must be obeyed by “guests”, but the owner is the ultimate authority that can decide whether you exist or you vanish, whether the material shared/published deserves to stay public or be destroyed.

Guests of fediverse servers may either kiss owners’ rear ends and self-restrict to owners’ ideas and perceptions, or risk being removed and all the content shared and exchanged be removed. So they behave accordingly, as subordinates to the dictators hosting the space they use to share ideas and information.

Somehow, very few people find all this disturbing, and in contrast to social media owned and operated by large corporations, many progressive, democratic, liberal minded people thing and act convinced that this is better. I have no clue what goes on in most corporate social media, long ago when I used twitter I don’t remember any post of mine being removed. As far as I can tell, as long as they can sell IDs, cookies, email accounts, and advertising they couldn’t care less what you think. Communists (authoritarian/totalitarian and libertarian/democractic), anarchists of all colors and flavors, never see so much restriction, sensitivity, and censorship as exercised in #Fediverse.

It is absurd, I have never seen or imagined that deleting and censoring people would have been so pervasive and extensive as seen on #Fediverse, primarily #Mastodon servers. #Diaspora owners seem much more respectful of guests and users, and less intrusive in their guests’ discussions.

So all I see here is a neoliberal social engineering experiment going well. If this cannibalism can be tolerated by the “left” minded people then this may actually work on the physical world as well. Absolutely NO PUBLIC SPACE AND NO HUMAN RIGHTS, just obedient respectful guests in private space.

Sad, very sad, unbelievable dystopia. And this is gradually becoming an isolated ghetto of the left that has little or no effect and affect to the remaining world. Just as in real political repression, you keep attacking what you want to neutralize, you force them to barricade and contain their collective being, till nobody can see or hear them.

So real social activists who want to affect and inspire “real people” will lark on corporate media among the many, while the self defined radicals will gather up in this private ghetto where they are under the illusion they are safe and away from fascists.

Smart fascists start and run #fediverse servers as concentration camps of progressive, left, radical, activists to self contain themselves away from society.

#fediverse #neoliberalism #public domain #progressive #alternative #left #chaotic #disorder

#libertarian #communism #anarchism #syndicalism #democracy #communalism

#totalitarianism #capitalism #fascism #private ownership #marxism #dictatorship

@(heretical_I@kafeneio.social)
@Acta Populi

The narrow mindedness of marxist evangelists.

The abusing WASP industrial worker is of a different class than a dark skinned female non-hetero limping soup kitchen owner with three employees. The first is an object of exploitation, the second is the subject collecting surplus value from providing the poor with a cheap meal.

Meanwhile managers of multinationals, banks, insurance co's, and gov.agencies are inseparable parts of the proletariat.

#Marxism #Bankrupt

@TheTerminallyWell

^The linked thread is an excellent example of why idealism is a dead-end ideological tool that gets people nowhere.

>Somehow, very few people find all this disturbing, and in contrast to social media owned and operated by large corporations, many progressive, democratic, liberal minded people think and act convinced that this is better. I have no clue what goes on in most corporate social media, long ago when I used twitter I don’t remember any post of mine being removed. As far as I can tell, as long as they can sell IDs, cookies, email accounts, and advertising they couldn’t care less what you think. Communists (authoritarian/totalitarian and libertarian/democractic), anarchists of all colors and flavors, never see so much restriction, sensitivity, and censorship as exercised in #Fediverse.

Thinking that corporate social media doesn't care what you think, that there is no restriction or censorship of socialist or communist or anarchist thought, that everything is welcome so long as money is made, is thoroughly ahistorical and a blatant disregard for material reality. Thinking that, somehow, the #fediverse is a better representation of #neoliberalism than corporate social media, betrays a basic misunderstanding of what the word even means.

#socialism #communism #marxism #anarchism

A FEW WORDS ABOUT LENIN FOR “DUMMIES”

All those who take to judging Lenin today are united by an absolute misunderstanding of the meaning of his teachings, the reasons for his popularity among the people and the motives behind the creation of the USSR. Simply put, none of them has ever read Lenin and is not going to read him (although now is the right time, given the situation in the world economy). Especially for them - on a mundane, primitive level - I will outline the logic of the Bolsheviks in 1916.

1. The development of capitalism inevitably leads to crises. Crises are always resolved through war.

2. With each successive crisis, imperialist wars will become more and more destructive.

3. In imperialist wars, the class structure of societies is most brutally exposed: the poor and powerless are the first to perish, while the rich sit in the rear and do not perish.

4. Russia, as a backward capitalist state, has no chance of winning a world war. As a semi-colonial power, Russia is dependent on external creditors, and therefore with the lives of its soldiers constantly saves the allies on the Western front. Even in case of Entente's victory over Germany, it was Russia that would inevitably become the next “patient of Europe” (see the Crimean War). Russia's technological lagging behind England, the USA, France and Japan (see Russo-Japanese War) is such that it leaves practically no chance for the state to survive. The speed with which the Entente accepted Nikolai's abdication and then rushed to take the Tsar's inheritance, fully confirms these assumptions.

5. In order to prevent another world war (in which one day everyone will die - both Russians and non-Russians), it is necessary to create another, alternative world economic system (USSR).

6. To protect this world economic system from the inevitable aggression of capitalism, its creators must make a qualitative leap in science, technology, education, medicine. Every citizen of the new state must feel his or her involvement in it and be motivated to defend it. The tsarist government was unable to create such motivation among the people in World War I (see “The German will not reach the Urals”).

7. To build a new world economic system within the borders of the RSFSR would be absurd. It would not have survived. It required an ideology that would unite all the nationalities inhabiting the Russian Empire. This ideology could not be neither Russian nationalism, nor Orthodoxy, nor imperialism as such. Neither by force, nor by persuasion to drive Turkestan, the Caucasus, Siberia, the Far East, Ukraine, etc. under the imperial roof was no longer possible (Denikin, who was attacked by Georgians N. Zhordania near Adler, will not lie). Only justice could become the ideology uniting “Russians-Uzbeks-Latvians”. The state framework - only the Union of equal peoples. A union, not an empire.

8. The new world economic system will inevitably be strangled and suffocated in a blockade (there is no peaceful coexistence of two systems) if it does not take offensive actions. Hence the mondialist thesis of permanent revolution. Attention, orthodox Stalinists: this thesis was never rejected even by Stalin. Stalin only said that first we must build the state and only then get involved in any revolutions. Actually, it was on the basis of these differences that Trotsky earned his ice pick. Rejection of the idea of fighting capitalism on foreign territory (in WWII the Allies did not open a second front until the Comintern was abolished), eventually led to the fact that the USSR had to fight on its own territory. “Coexistence of two systems” turned out to be a scam for suckers.

9. The destruction of the USSR did not cancel out any of the above problems. Capitalism is entering a crisis unprecedented in history, the way out of which it habitually seeks through war.


#Russia #USSR #soviet #history #capitalism #crisis #Lenin #Stalin #bolsheviks #marxism #study #knowledge for #future

I just got through having a conversation with someone on REDnote about Marx's Labor Theory of Value, and they brought up how they learned about it in middle school and asked me if I learned it in school. I then had to explain to them that Americans don't learn about Marxism in school and about the Crucial Communism Teaching Act that will indoctrinate students into hating Marxism.

#rednote #communism #marxism #socialism

"Werner Bonefeld discusses with Lillian Cicerchia his new book A Critical Theory of Economic Compulsion: Wealth, Suffering, and Negation (Routledge, 2023)"

https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/emancipations/vol3/iss3/3/

#Marxism #CriticalTheory #OpenMarxism #Autonomism #Capitalism

Should people have a choice to attempt living outside of capitalism?

https://friendica.world/display/84b6ef2b-7367-76a9-0d13-12b031354204

#neoliberalism #anarchism #socialism #marxism #IWW #theory #communism #libertarianism #libertarian #corporatism #wobblies #materialism #dialectic #communalism
@yogthos @heretical_i

The Soviet Union was created on December 30, 1922! It remains one of mankind's greatest achievements.
Here is a 🧵 with some of the highlights:

USSR provided free education to all citizens resulting in literacy rising from 33% to 99.9%.
Soon after formation, adult education schools popped up in every town and every village.

USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960's, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA.

Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s.

By 1983, they had become completely food sovereign and eating better than Americans (according to the CIA)

The CIA has also declassified documents admitting that there was collective leadership even in Stalin's time.

USSR built solar power plants as early as 1930!

The Soviet Union declared the US apartheid campaign against their own black citizens were genocide.

USSR moved from 58.5-hour work weeks to 41.6 hour work weeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960.

USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996.

In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67 and the average (not median) retiree household in the USA could expect $48k/yr which comes out to 65% of the 74k average (not median) household income in 2016.

GDP took off after socialism was established and then collapsed with the reintroduction of capitalism.

The Soviet Union had the highest physician/patient ratio in the world. USSR had 42 doctors per 10,000 population compared to 24 in Denmark and Sweden, and 19 in US.

USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days.

#Russia #USSR #soviet #russian #history #humanity #humanrights #workerrights #communism #socialism #marxism #study for #future #Россия #СССР #история

"The American military attaché in Berlin... met with the future leader of the 3rd Reich and... his associates, such as Alfred Rosenberg & Erich Ludendorff. "It will be much better for America and England if the decisive battle between our civilization and #Marxism is fought on German soil, and not on American or English soil. If we (America) do not help German #nationalism, then Bolshevism will take over Germany,"

How the US enabled WWII #nazis and still does in #Ukraine https://t.me/ukr_leaks_eng/18363

Add to https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/

A list of Decent News Sites https://soraxtm.wordpress.com/a-list-of-decent-news-sites-10-20-2024/

Although many of those sites, even RT.ru use google scripts who just pass indiscriminately all user ID and IP of site visitors to you know who YKW agencies ..

@soraxtmputinxi @soraxtm @actapopuli @Yogthos @heretical_i #zapatista #ezln
#libertarian #anticapitalist #anarchist #marxism #autonomy

"The impact of these ideas in the US, though considerable, was mostly concentrated in literature departments. Jameson argues that “theory was always a revolt against disciplines”. While that might have been true in France in the 1960s, where the whole gamut of the sciences humaines fell to the structuralists, it wasn’t true in the US in the following two decades.

“The American interest in these people,” Jameson adds, “was certainly part of a ’60s passion for new thinking which had to do with politics as much as anything else.” But, you might ask, what kind of politics? As Todd Gitlin, a leftwing sceptic of the politics of theory, observed mordantly at the time: “While the right has been busy taking the White House, the left has been marching on the English department.”"

https://www.ft.com/content/08139cab-6655-4643-96c2-d8efaf0097b8

#Jameson #USA #CriticalTheory #Marxism #Derrida #Foucault #Barthes

Libya, Afghanistan, Syria - take your pick. On why leftists in the West need to understand their role. #politics #news #marxism #anarchism #communism #syria #libya #afghanistan #USA #democrats #neoliberals #history #education #humanrights

US & its lap-dog genocider Israel enabling another government change to expand US hegemonic interests: Yay! 🎊 People in the West & reactionaries everywhere: "Is this a greater future for Syria. ☺️" #politics #news #syria #israel #freepalestine #marxism #geopolitics

"The ruling classes, that is, the bourgeoisie, bureaucracy, intelligentsia, etc., never tire of affirming the incompetence, incapacity and ignorance of the workers. This has a reason; it is not something gratuitous or without purpose. In all class societies, the ruling classes affirm and reaffirm the inferiority of the exploited classes. In order for the latter to remain exploited, they must truly believe that they are incapable, inferior and ignorant.

A condition for workers to truly conquer their freedom is their self-activity as a class for themselves. No other class has an interest in this happening. The ruling class (bourgeoisie), the auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie (bureaucracy and intelligentsia) and other upper classes (landowners, for example) insist with all the power they have on the incapacity of the workers. The workers, in turn, must, with all the weapons at their disposal, demonstrate their capacity for self-organization.

Pannekoek (1977) is emphatic on this issue. Both parties and unions, regardless of their orientation, actually represent interests that are not those of the working class. According to Pannekoek's analysis, these organizations represent an expression of the “old workers' movement”. This movement was not yet capable of acting on its own. Unions are the type of organization needed by a dispersed, incipient proletariat living in abject conditions, those of the beginning of capitalist production."

https://libcom.org/article/anton-pannekoeks-workers-councils-concrete-utopia-proletarian-revolution

#CouncilCommunism #WorkersCouncil #Marxism #Utopia #Revolution

"Today, Bauer’s work is immediately relevant to our thinking on multiculturalism, of which it can be seen as a precursor. To be clear, Bauer’s central argument is to reject any essentialist principle in the conceptualization of the national question. For Bauer, we cannot think of modern nations in terms of “metaphysical theories” (such as notions of national spiritualism) or “voluntaristic theories” (as in Ernest Renan’s theory of the nation as a “daily plebiscite”). National identities are not “naturally given” and invariable but are rather culturally changeable.

However, Bauer’s approach to the nation-state is very different from the dominant liberal one today. In the liberal nation-state, it is the cultural practice of the dominant national group that prevails. Multiculturalism is thus always limited by this hegemony and multicultural states cannot easily be constructed. Any commitment to cultural pluralism can amount to little more than a token commitment to diversity within overwhelmingly assimilationist structures.

Bauer criticized the attitude of the early 1900s “German Austrian” workers’ movement as a “naïve cosmopolitanism” which rejected national struggles as diversionary and advocated a humanistic world citizenship as its alternative. There were clear echoes of this attitude in the promotion of “global cosmopolitanism” during the early 2000s. In that sense, we very much need a Bauer 2.0 to move beyond such naïve and complacent indifference to the national question today.

Bauer fundamentally disagreed with the idea that the national movements were simply an obstacle for the class struggle and that internationalism was the only way forward. He was convinced that it was only the working class that could create the conditions for the development of a nation, proclaiming that “the international struggle is the means that we must use to realize our national ideal.”"

https://jacobin.com/2023/11/otto-bauer-austro-marxism-nationalism-theory-history

#Nationalism #History #Marxism #Multiculturalism #Socialism

There's too much wrong with this post. Unrelenting Zionism, anti-Marxism, incorrectly comparing fascism and communism, anti-feminism, using the word "woke" unironically. I'm not wasting my time with this trash account, but you can argue with this person if you want here: https://mastodon.social/@ThinkIsrael/113558149343218720

#Israel #Marxism #Feminism #Fascism #Communism

The October 7 attack on #Israel was part of a larger attack on the West & Western values. Such systematic attacks —expressed through #Marxism, radical #feminism, & the entire fabric of (DEI—have turned against Jews and Judaism. In truth, this should be unsurprising as this happened in the face of anti-Western ideologies of the past, which includes both #fascism, & #Communism. The same is now true of their successors, from radical #Islam to today’s radical “woke” Left.

https://think-israel.com/october-7-and-the-battle-for-the-west/

#communism #manifest #Marxism #history

Note on the problem of the left's study of the demise of the USSR
...
Under communism, the superstructure presupposes the free and dynamic development of the basis as an organic side of social production, and the basis gives room for the development of the superstructure. In this sense, the formation "communism" is opposite not to the formation "capitalism", but to all class formations together. That is why the reasoning of various left-wing theorists about the contradictions between socialist production and social relations is deeply erroneous. It is correct to speak of the struggle of the old exploitative modes with the new communist mode.

Since in an exploitative society socio-economic processes are mostly spontaneous, production anarchy reigns, in the pair base - superstructure the leading role in the pair remains with the base, and the superstructure is a kind of reflection of the requirements of the dominant relations of the base. In communist society, however, it is the superstructure, in the form of the policies of the party and the state, that becomes the leading one, and the basis the slave. This is a very important point that the left does not understand. That is why Lenin argued that it is enough for the working class in alliance with the peasantry to take power and on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat it is possible to build the basis of communism. That is why the statements of certain figures widely known in leftist circles that the USSR allegedly perished because Russia was too economically backward are anti-Marxist. For them, the great Stalinist industrialization is not the construction of communism, but merely the bourgeois modernization of the economy, the elimination of industrial backwardness. They do not want to see that under Stalin not just built a lot of plants and factories, creating from scratch entire industries, but built exactly that new communist relations.
...

#politics #economy #USSR #marxism #communism #history #study for #future

...
You can clearly see how the leaders of this so-called BLM movement "understand" Marxism. Instead of talking about the need to abolish private ownership of the means of production and create a theoretically competent communist party to deploy propaganda and agitation for the purpose of a real struggle for power, these people are bogged down in actionism and pogroms, declaring to the amusement of the public about the struggle for the rights of perverts of all stripes. Excellent "Marxists"! The bourgeoisie of the whole world only dreams of all its opponents being just like that. Ridiculous, theoretically illiterate, putting forward clownish slogans. Of course, it is precisely such "Marxists" that the bourgeois press will strenuously promote through the media, which is what we are seeing. Such "Marxists" are a tool for discrediting communism. These people, voluntarily or unwittingly, become allies of the bourgeoisie in strengthening its power.

Generally speaking, the bourgeois media deliberately create a stereotype of communists as backward people, either missing the USSR or stupid-headed actionists. The main thing that propagandists try to hide from the masses is that communism is a science, and communists adhere to a scientific approach. True, the activists themselves, who undeservedly call themselves communists and do not own Marxist-Leninist theory, are no less to blame here.

In addition to the "subtle" technologies of stirring up interest in empty-headed leftists, the bourgeoisie also uses cruder methods. For example, an ordinary lie. Everything is simple here. Some blatantly false, inadequate information is taken, necessarily associated with the "left" and thrown into the public space. And since the ordinary reader is not only not accustomed to simply double-checking information, but also does not understand that there is a colossal, fundamental difference between a conscientious communist and all sorts of leftists, tailists, opportunists, the promoted image of a "crazy leftist" begins to work. Such techniques are especially effective in the minds of young people, whose consciousness is distorted by the "white noise" of social networks, and, due to the lack of life experience and theoretical knowledge, is more susceptible to manipulation and emotionally unstable. An example of such rough work:
...

#leftism #leftist #western #lie about #communists #marxism #communism is #learning for #future