Swoocy Lucy @CornishRepublicanArmy@witches.live

Mao was an opportunist. the PRC could never be a negotiation of the negation, it could never be a proletarian dictatorship and it could never be an end to capital.

Marx lays out how the proletariat are 'the revolutionary subject' of capitalism. this means that they are the underclass who will rise up to negate the previous order for a new one, and in the case of the proletariat they will complete the dialectic and negate the negation via an abolition of class

hey kids, wanna learn about fascism 👀 ?

Fascism is something we all know of here. we see it grow, we see it's hate turned against many of us, we see the destruction it has brought. but what *is* fascism and what is it's cause?

Fascism doesn't arise from the ether like some monster, fascism is an idea and a product of the times in which it was created.

fascism in it's first most basic form was essentially democratic socialism, and in this we see the core of what fascism truly is. fascism is class struggle.

Ok, this thread is going to be long, BUT I have written it in such a way that anybody can read it and understand the points. The thread is about the failures of the Russian revolution, why didn't it produce communism? Some may find the takes 'hot' but, know I don't want to attack people, merely provide my take and perspective. I am a Leninist myself, rare breed around the free territory of mastodon I know, but more specifically I am a Bordigist. Bordigism is a strand of Left Communism, Left Communism is something that came out of critique of the USSR in the third internationale from a lefter wing perspective of Soviet capitalism.

Hello! I'm Lucy, a very gay trans girl from the UK. I'm 20 years old and live in London these days but was forged in the hellfire of occupied Kernow. I am VERY likely to go off about history and or politics
ardent Amadeo Bordiga stan.
way too much of a fuckin' nerd so just ask me questions about w/e and I will honestly love to answer them
personal interests are: History, Sociology, Political theory, Theology, Linguistics, Economics and writing fiction.
I have pretty bad dyslexia so be warned that half my posts will have a bunch of dumb mistakes in them
if you're a gay girl communist with good takes there's a ~85% chance I have a crush on you

there's a direct line of influence from the English civil war -> American revolution -> French revolutionaries -> 1848 and socialists and communists-> 1917-1919 revolutions -> us right here right now

pouring one out for all the peoples states who thought they could overcome some little formula bois by just slapping red flags on things

I could explain this deeper, but really ya just gotta read chapter 1 of capital

and so, my closing argument is. HA, LEFTCOMS:1917 - MARXIST LENINISTS:0

the revolution and what it attempts to do is to take a hammer to capital and smash every last part of it in a sweeping motion, to leave no vestige left to grow, to wipe very last drop out. the retention of M-C-M is the retention of capitalism make no mistake, remove the bourgeoisie in a revolution, remove 'private' ownership for a more 'euqal' one and all you're doing is reorganising capital in the short term. eventually, due to the accumulation and influences of capital, the old order will come to exist in some new form, be it of the party and workers state or the 'people.

these series of exchanges exist without capitalists. a co-op still buys the labour power of workers and still produces goods that are made to be sold and have those profits go back into the engine that feeds off this M-C-M cycle, the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Yugoslavia ect all the fucking way down the list ALL had this, none of them have abolished this CORE of capitalist relations and none of them have been free from capital because of it.

M-C-M, Money-Commodity-Money. essentially, this formula right here is capitalism in it's most reduced form. what M-C-M is is having a starting amount of capital, Money, exchanging that for a Commodity, and then exchanging that Commodity for a larger some of Money. but remember, that buying and selling isn't just raw goods being sold and bought, a Commodity is ANYTHING that can be exchanged, even non physical things such as labour time.

now we get to some formulas (you can chose to cheer or groan here as you wish). M-C is the most simple form of exchange we can think of; M, money, is exchanged for C, commodity, or 'buying some shit' as we call it. and, of course, the inverse is true, C-M being exchanging a good for some money, or selling something in plain English. well, those are the basic parts that make up the larger cycles of exchange that take place within commodity production.

this all then exists within a larger system of exchanging different 'commodities'. 'commodities' are essentially anything that can be bought or sold, aka exchanged, but this isn't exclusive to say an iphone. the time that you get paid for at work is a commodity, it is a thing you own, your capability to work, that you exchange for a wage (this is what produces alienation btw).

So, Lucy, you ask, what *is* commodity production? simply put, commodity production is the orientation of society and the industrial output of the economy towards producing goods for the sole purpose of selling them as goods. but it's important to highlight that the aim of this production is to sell the goods that are produced, they are commodities, not seen as objects that have a *use* but as objects that exist to be *sold*.

the analysis of the commodity, what it is, how it is produced, how it is exchanged, what all of this represents and for what end is what the first chapter of capital is about, and there's a reason for all of that. commodity production, and commodity exchange orientated societies ARE what capitalism is, not just the existence of an owning class in the sense of an obvious 1%.

"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity."

the opening lines to Capital. we cannot understate the place that the organisation of production has over the mere class stratification of proletarian to bourgeoisie on an obvious aesthetic existing liberal level. things run deeper than just the worker and the boss.