Can’t believe I missed that in the title, yea, peasantry aren’t proletarian but instead they are their own class.

Neither does the hammer for the average industrial worker, but both are symbolic.

Always thought the GDR and WPK had awesome h&s variations!

The same, honestly. These jobs never went away, they were just shifted out of the imperial core to the periphery. It’s a symbol of two classes, the proletariat and the peasantry. While the peasantry has been mostly phased out, its symbol remains.

I’m talking about both before and after revolution, such as in this comment where I talk about democratic systems in post-revolutionary socialist states. This was 2 comments ago, either you forgot about it already or didn’t read it, neither of which shows any real sense of care for truth on your part.

Secondly, as I explained in my last comment, “intellectuals” are not a class. They belong to broader classes. Vanguards are indeed supposed to teach the rest of the working classes how to correctly struggle. Are you going to tell me that teachers in schools are an “elite class” too? This is just anti-intellectualism. Not everyone is going to be dedicated to studying revolutionary theory and history, not everyone is going to be a labor organizer, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have people dedicated to doing so.

Classes are social relations to production. The vanguard party and non-vanguard working class both have the same ownership over the means of production, just like your manager at whatever job you have likely isn’t an owner either.

Where are you getting all of these confused ideas about class, socialist democracy, and vanguards from? It certainly isn’t from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, nor is it from historical documentation.

Both .ml instances are extremely broadly federated. Grad is defederated by more instances, but nevertheless remains federated on their end, meaning Grad accounts see pretty much everything except a few instances.

“Intellectuals,” or whatever term you wish to describe them as, are not a class, but a subsection of every class. Each class has its own “intellectuals,” there are proletarian intellectuals and there are capitalist intellectuals. What the vanguard is, is a group of the working classes dedicated to revolution, professional revolutionaries. They are not “elites.” Here’s a diagram from Lady Izdihar, with the “organized core” being the vanguard:

Classes are not simply any way you can categorize people, but specific social relations to production. Yes, steel workers are often members of vanguard parties. I organize with a communist party and have a full-time job. I’m not “acting” like you’re mistaken, you are mistaken, you do not know how vanguards function nor how democracy works within vanguards and socialist countries with vanguard parties, otherwise you wouldn’t be acting like vanguards are a “class” and that they aren’t democratic.

Vanguards are both worker run and democratic. Vanguards are a subsection of the working classes, not a class of their own or outside class struggle, and are both democratic internally, as well as establishing systems of democracy externally. I’m really not sure where you’re getting the idea that believing the working class needs to be organized for revolution means democracy is suddenly off the table.

For example, in the USSR, first-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about. Today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference for other socialist countries, with their own forms of democracy.

So again, why lie about what I believe? I’m not responsible for you not knowing what a vanguard is or how socialist democracy works, but you feel very confident in telling me that I’m lying about it.

I’m certainly not an “expert,” but it does appear that way, yes. The global south is rising in development, which is breaking down the system of super-exploitation the west has relied on. Without a strong industrial base, austerity is forced, which breeds discontent. Something is always rising, and something is always dying away. Dialectics at work.

Nope, not what I believe at all, and the fact that you have to invent my beliefs proves you can’t actually argue against my real ones.

You are indeed correct. Lemmy.world is less democratic than dbzer0.

Ah, gotcha. They are employing more draconian measures as they are forced into austerity politics by imperialist decay, because they need to exert a tighter grip on a population that does not want austerity. This, of course, breeds more resistance, as you pointed out.

I’m not defending mass murder, I’m defending the right of the working classes of Russia to overthrow the brutally violent Tsarist regime, and their right to defend the new socialist system they created. I’m defending the revolutionary leader that helped organize and facilitate that progressive movement that freed the working classes of Russia from conditions so brutal they died at an average age of 33, in wooden shack houses with minimal heating, all while the Tsar and capitalists made vast quantities of money and colonized the surrounding areas.

You’re batting for the Tsar. The Russian working classes killed the Tsarists and capitalists that had been terrorizing them for centuries.

This is vulgar class reductionism. The US and Germany are both imperialist countries that bribe their proletarians with a share of the spoils of international plunder. Israel is a genocidal settler-colony that serves as a forward base for imperialist countries in West Asia. Not only is this vulgar class reductionism, but it’s intentional misinterpretation. Saying “death to xyz country” means elimination of the state and the system, not genocide on the people of said country.

What do you mean? The state acts depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, and the stage of class struggle. States prohibit more as class struggle heightens and from external and internal pressures, that’s what drives it.

I don’t think it’s particularly interesting that anarchists defederated from Zionists.

You’re arguing against the people wielding their power against Zionists and in favor of Zionists being able to speak freely. You moved to an instance with stricter defederation, showing you don’t care about defederation in the abstract, but what was being defederated.

Yet another example of why the abstract concept of “authoritarianism” is useless. In this case, the people of dbzer0 decided democratically to wield their authority to defederate from an instance with an explicit Zionist problem. It isn’t the defederation that’s the problem in the abstract, or the authority, it’s the fact that this authority was used against Zionists.

Yep, or they realize it means democratic control by the proletariat, dictatorship against capitalists and fascists, as Marx intended, but then think socialist countries all misunderstood Marx and established capitalist-style dictatorships of the few. This is a deeply chauvanist attitude though, that assumes people in socialist countries too stupid to understand basic Marxist concepts (despite having higher functional literacy rates than the US Empire).

Lemmy.ml has a lot of communists, and dbzer0 is mainly anarchists with some communists as well. We have a lot more in common with each other than with feddit.org, which as we can see has a bad history with Zionism at the admin level. It’s entirely consistent to defederate feddit.org, which dbzer0 voted for as an instance, while remaining federated with Lemmy.ml.