Thoughts and Questions
So I recently read the manifesto and I want some answers and insight to some doubts and theories I have going on in my head based on how I interpreted the text and history. If I'm wrong, then that's fine and chalking a point to "you just fell victim to American propaganda" is perfectly fine to me. I also identify as a communism-centrist (I will expand upon down below). These are simply thoughts/questions I have had before and after reading the manifesto.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao weren't good people(?). Sure, they were communists that for sure progressed socialism their respective societies, but as far as I'm concerned they went on a power trip at the same time (such as the Cheka in Lenin's case). This power trip being the part I take issue with. I do come from a family that fled China due to Mao's rule, but this point probably has a "victim of propaganda" answer.
Furthermore, the reason communism wasn't achieved in these societies was because of a combination of this power trip holding them back, but also the poor state of their economies and technology. I do like how, after the instillation of a socialist/communist society, existing technology would be reallocated to answer for needs of subsistence. However, The Soviet Union and China were largely agrarian and struggling. The Soviet Union in particular still had to deal with a world war, remnants of the previous autocracy and bourgeois elements, and progressing famine. If these countries had a better economy and further technological capabilities, the technology could better answer for subsistence and make a communist utopia easier to implement.
Capitalism is necessary in this way(?). The more time goes on in a capitalist society, the more technology would be advanced. This technology does reduce the ability of the already exploited laborer to work, reducing their wage since they have to switch to a job that requires less skill. I understand that as long as capitalism is in place, exploitation will always exist and technology will more than likely never be used to answer for things like housing and food. But in my opinion, the technology only needs to be able to exist for a communist revolution in the US to take place. Progress in technology only gives more reason to the proletariat to revolt. And when we have the technology to efficiently and effectively answer subsistence, then the time for revolution is nigh. On that note, a revolution HAS to take place in America because if the face of capitalism falls, it would signal to all other socialist countries to follow suit and work towards collective worldwide communism.
The rest are lesser theories
- The two major political parties in the US don't help anyone because not only do they prioritize answering for the bourgeoisie, they don't answer for any of the three categories I conclude make up most of the population.
a. The political -- people who surrender their beliefs to these parties that actively work against their interests, instead opting to fight a ruse against followers of the opposing party which becomes "real" enough to split and shun relationships.
b. The apolitical -- the centrists. I admit that I myself am unfortunately part of this group. These people sneer and act high and mighty over others for caring about politics, but their indifference only contributes to the worsening state of society. And, in the event that these reactionaries do support communism (at least in theory), they don't have the balls to start anything in fear of the consequences if their efforts fail.
c. The uninformed. These people make up a subsection of the first two categories, distinct in that they completely fall for the propaganda of both/either parties, or the lack of news thereof. If people don't know there is a problem in the first place, then there is no problem to address. Likewise if they don't know the system they're in actively exploits them, then they can live in bliss.
- Generative AI is the next step to a proletariat revolution. Don't get me wrong, I hate AI as much as the next guy, but in my understanding it fills every criteria that technology has historically played, only tenfold. It is a bourgeois invention created to keep us down (source: see Sam Altman's BlackRock interview on selling intelligence on a meter), it destroys jobs and reduces the role of the laborer within the system to lower wage and lower skill jobs, and it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. Combine all of that with the ecological destruction it causes through its expansion, I don't think its too far-fetched to say that, with the early stages that the current proletariat is in, that the destruction of the instruments of production will occur again. I think people will soon eventually reach a tipping point, and start destroying data centers in the name of eco-terrorism (not me because I am a centrist -- I don't have the balls to do it... yet).