ok seinfeld

Of course it would, and capitalism only worsens the problem.

But the existence of the nation-state, as we know it, and as has ever been attempted in history thus far, is incompatible with developing communism. This is the point I'm making. For communism to work, it cannot be done at a national level through a party, and it cannot result in the existence of nations anymore.

Sarvodaya been up since 1958 and has 11 million residents

Based

Finally someone is understanding my point lol

Nations are inherently bourgeoisie

I think you’re mixing up communism and socialism

Communism can’t involve a nation state

Socialism requires a state

Any communist who thinks that such an ideology can exist within a nation state, let alone it having existed yet at all, doesn’t understand the socialism -> communism process intuitively yet

Well obviously communism per se is a stateless society, it's the definition

Realistically none of us are communists, just socialists preparing future generations for that next step

There you have it

This is a stretch imo

We can call ourselves communists bc this is the end goal

There are socialists who dont believe in communism

Furthermore the terms are blurry, Marx and Lenin use them differently

It's best not to get into semantics IMO

Yeah lol I’m just f***ing around

It confuses a lot of people. We tend to use the ML definitions though. Here Lenin improved on Marx.

Those are the “state=power” “government=coordination” mish mash right

you're assuming the nature of capitalist expansion will allow for the existence of communist organization without a centralized state.

even the ELZN, which is right now being attacked by far right paramilitaries supported by the Chiapas government, only exists because the outright extermination of the ELZN would be horrific international optics for the Mexican government.

the issue with communism is capitalist aggression. socialist countries fall into two categories: accepting of neoliberal reforms and foreign exploitation in exchange for the pacifism of capitalist aggression or blatant, malicious violence inflicted on the people for simply not allowing such egregious exploitation.

any competent communist society would have measures in place to quell the forces of reaction, but most importantly is to extinguish the mechanisms for the material interests of reaction ie making the system work for everybody and having systems in place to hold people accountable.

Thats what communism strives for: a classless and stateless society. If by "anymore" you're referring to countries like china, the CCP can only be considered communist through its means of social control, it is a fundamentally capitalist economy with public and private enterprises

Whats the deal with abortion?! Just have it!

This is very controversial, I can't write it all on my phone. Marx basically means dialectics in terms of motion and contradiction.

We often say: A person is either dead or alive. Technically it isn't true. Heart death and brain death are different. Furthermore, some of your bodily functions continue, and maybe for a split-second, some cells are alive and some are dying. Dialectics is about viewing those contradictory moments, viewing those transitions and motions. If you understand that, you can better understand what life and death mean in biological terms.

This is tied back to economics. Capitalism has only existed for 300 years or so. Before we had feudalism in Europe. So if you understand the transitional phase between feudalism and capitalism (often called mercantilism), you can understand capitalism better and why it works the way it does, for example why the bourgeoisie exists. Similarly, you can make educated guesses about the transitions that arise out of capitalism into the new system that will follow out of it.

The seed from which this transition grows are the contradictions of capitalism. Climate change; automation, falling profit rates, growing monopolies, alienation of workers. Ultimately these will accelerate the demise of capitalism. This doesnt mean that socialism will be its necessary replacement. But communism in the Marxist Leninist sense is the project of guiding and accelerating this transition consciously for the benefit of the working masses.

It's more complicated than this but I think this is a good start.

@Synopsis

lmfao “Just have it!”

the new slogan

edit: can’t tell if you meant just have an abortion or have the baby

I'm basically rebuking the idea of socialism in one country as well as communism being a party affair. At least that's what I'm attempting to do.

Lol the ladder

"Families! They're like jobs! You hate them but you're there anyway!"

this was a banger ngl

^^

i know China hasn't achieved communism, the CPC itself has said as much

But how does Socialism in One Country then turn into a stateless society? I don't agree with Trotskyist "permanent revolution", but I also don't agree that a century of "building socialism" is a practical solution either.