tiredturtle

Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.

Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.

Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.

Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?

The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t "actually a Marxist" or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?

Investigating Lenin, Stalin, and Mao applies Marxist analysis, not dogma. Their regimes centralized power, suppressed workers, and contradicted Marx’s principles of worker control and class abolition. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution harmed proletarian agency, deviating from socialism.

Equating AES states to socialism isn’t proven. This knowledge isn’t "Western" but aligns with Marxism’s demand for accountability. Marxism thrives on self-criticism; dismissing critique stifles its revolutionary potential. "Investigate" is a good guideline, and baseless assumption for the lack of aren't helpful. Dogmatism distorts Marxism.

The PRC being socialist would require that it aligns with the Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and revolutionary progress. Evidence suggests that the PRC's actions often prioritize state control and compliance instead of working-class emancipation. We shouldn't fall to beliefs, religion is the opiate of the masses after all

I'm not sure I understand the disconnect. I don't see my discussions as being lecture. I've only thought to participate and hope I haven't broken some taboo.

I do understand the concern in today's era

In the PRC, the Communist Party leads the state, but Marxism tells us to go beyond labels and focus on material reality. The ruling class is defined by who holds and uses economic and political power. If the Party and state genuinely reduce exploitation, improve living conditions, and build socialism, they fulfill a proletarian role. But if they prioritize maintaining power or allow inequality to grow, they act as a ruling class.

For the proletariat in China, their actions depend on their material conditions. If the system serves their interests, they should work to strengthen and improve socialism. But if exploitation exists, workers must organize, critically engage with the Party, and demand reforms that align with Marxist principles of dismantling class oppression.

It’s difficult to fully understand the proletariat’s sentiment in a context where opinions may need to be hidden and opportunities for agency could be limited. This makes critical analysis even more important to ensure that socialism actually serves the people.

Some users keep claiming the theory is just "AI slop" which is disheartening. I've already replied to a few.

I think there's a misunderstanding. I’m not claiming to have any answers, and I’m being critical of my own biases too. Marxism teaches us to question everything to see if they serve the working class or just maintain power.

When I say ‘challenge power structures,’ I mean education should help people understand class struggle and how to improve society, not just obey the system blindly. This isn’t about imposing some ‘Euro-centric’ idea but asking if education is helping build socialism or just keeping things the same. It's an universal issue.

I’m not AI, just someone who isn’t a native English speaker. I rely on translation tools, accessibility features, and autocorrect for help, especially on theoretical topics. That might explain why the style seems a bit off?

Marxism doesn’t see education as some abstract idea of ‘truth’ but as a tool shaped by material conditions. The question isn’t whether education is ‘true’ but who it serves. Does it serve the status quo, teaching workers to accept their place in the system. In socialism, education should aim to empower the working class and build a society free of exploitation.

Marxism encourages critical thinking, not blind allegiance. If education in any state doesn’t help people understand and challenge class oppression, it risks serving those in power instead of the people.

I haven’t researched how Americans talk about these topics specifically, but what I can say is that in a Marxist context, it’s essential to analyze how education serves the interests of the ruling class, regardless of the country. In reactionary states, the government controls the narrative to ensure stability and maintain political power, even if the education system appears progressive. Theory argues that true education should challenge existing power structures and develop class consciousness, but state-controlled education often aims to preserve the current system. So is there fostering of critical thinking, or merely reinforcing a controlled worldview, as any state does to maintain its authority?

I'm not arguing. The American Way is already how the ruling class stifles the people