If intersectional liberation is necessary, then can you judge communist nations for not abiding by that? If a communist nation doesn't offer gay marriage or the ability to choose ones gender, by what rights is there to critique this? Can I say a country isn't truly communist if I can't get married to someone of my gender?
Some AES do and some don't. Some haven't resolved those contradictions yet and they should be criticized for it. That's why we use the the term Actual Existing Socialism and not True Perfect Socialism.
These countries are socialist projects, projects that fall within the social revolution, to use Engels term. All AES have broadened democracy comparative to before their projects began and work toward the resolving of contradictions. Just because they haven't been resolved doesn't mean those projects arent socialist.
Criticism is the beginning for formulating beneficial change. The first step in the scientific method is defining the problem.
Communism advertises itself as being rational, so I expect it to be able to try to address these problems.
And I haven't said anything about Communism in general to mean it can't get implemented, but that there has to be an understanding of what may be deficient as a way to strive towards something greater.
If a political or economic system can't address and change potential issues, should it be a system that continues to be adopted?
I don't understand what you mean to say socialism can't address and change potential issues. Socialism is when the working class have overthrown the previous economic apparatus and secured proletarian democracy, it doesn't mean heaven on earth is created, it means the work has finally just started.
Taking power is step 1. The mechanism for change and addressing of issues as they arise is democracy, specifically democratic centralism. If you want to say socialist countries are behind in certain progressive social liberties, that's perfectly valid to say. What's not valid is to say this is somehow a failing of proletarian democracy, but rather, we should look why countries are the way they are. Every socialist country around today (Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK) was colonized between 100-120 years ago. That's going to have a lasting impact that will take a while to dismantle, even when a communist party has taken power. That's what we mean when we say there are contradictions that haven't been resolved yet.
I think a problem that comes along with these definitions is that we interpret socialism as meaning "expanded democracy to enfranchise the proletariat." That proletariat might be just coming out of the yoke of being a colony, that proletariat might have widespread bigotry, who knows. An early project of the USSR was criminalizing antisemitism since pogroms had been so common. The USSR would also sometimes have pro-natal policies relating to population growth, where abortion rights were restricted. That was a direct consequence of Tsarist Russia being so behind in industrial development compared to the rest of the developed world.
I’ve read your comments and suspect that you are actually considering making the jump to Marxism-Leninism. The answers to your questions are, as others have said: communism isn’t perfect, but it is better. Read theory. And bear in mind that supporting liberalism and fascism is the reason the west is collapsing right now and the reason you are asking these questions. Marxists have at least attempted to answer these questions with theory and praxis. Liberals and fascists ignore these questions entirely or provide at best remarkably superficial, absurd, and mystical answers (“nothing has ever really changed, humans are too corrupt”).
I used to be a liberal and was radicalized because capitalism destroyed my life and I couldn’t ignore it anymore. Some texts that really made a difference were Mao’s Combat Liberalism and Stalin’s interview with HG Wells. All my life I had been told that Mao and Stalin were evil insane genocidal maniacs who only did anything good at all by accident or because they got lucky. If this was the case, then how come both of them write/speak so well? How come they say things that are so obvious and make so much sense? Is it possible that I had been lied to my entire life by people who stood to lose from a successful communist revolution (namely, the rich who control my entire society)?
If intersectional liberation is necessary, then can you judge communist nations for not abiding by that? If a communist nation doesn't offer gay marriage or the ability to choose ones gender, by what rights is there to critique this? Can I say a country isn't truly communist if I can't get married to someone of my gender?
Some AES do and some don't. Some haven't resolved those contradictions yet and they should be criticized for it. That's why we use the the term Actual Existing Socialism and not True Perfect Socialism.
These countries are socialist projects, projects that fall within the social revolution, to use Engels term. All AES have broadened democracy comparative to before their projects began and work toward the resolving of contradictions. Just because they haven't been resolved doesn't mean those projects arent socialist.
Criticism is the beginning for formulating beneficial change. The first step in the scientific method is defining the problem.
Communism advertises itself as being rational, so I expect it to be able to try to address these problems.
And I haven't said anything about Communism in general to mean it can't get implemented, but that there has to be an understanding of what may be deficient as a way to strive towards something greater.
If a political or economic system can't address and change potential issues, should it be a system that continues to be adopted?
I don't understand what you mean to say socialism can't address and change potential issues. Socialism is when the working class have overthrown the previous economic apparatus and secured proletarian democracy, it doesn't mean heaven on earth is created, it means the work has finally just started.
Taking power is step 1. The mechanism for change and addressing of issues as they arise is democracy, specifically democratic centralism. If you want to say socialist countries are behind in certain progressive social liberties, that's perfectly valid to say. What's not valid is to say this is somehow a failing of proletarian democracy, but rather, we should look why countries are the way they are. Every socialist country around today (Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK) was colonized between 100-120 years ago. That's going to have a lasting impact that will take a while to dismantle, even when a communist party has taken power. That's what we mean when we say there are contradictions that haven't been resolved yet.
I think a problem that comes along with these definitions is that we interpret socialism as meaning "expanded democracy to enfranchise the proletariat." That proletariat might be just coming out of the yoke of being a colony, that proletariat might have widespread bigotry, who knows. An early project of the USSR was criminalizing antisemitism since pogroms had been so common. The USSR would also sometimes have pro-natal policies relating to population growth, where abortion rights were restricted. That was a direct consequence of Tsarist Russia being so behind in industrial development compared to the rest of the developed world.
Its a 200 year long intellectual tradition informed by real life AES projects which spark new theory.
But sure you're the only person who's ever realized that we should continually evaluate theory
I've never said I'm the only one to realize that we should continually evaluate theory. It just seems like I'm the only one doing so here.
I read Engels's article here and I'm discussing it within the context that I read it.
You're a special unique person, with special thoughts no one has ever had
I'm probably not; I'm sure a lot of other people on the Internet have these same thoughts.
I’ve read your comments and suspect that you are actually considering making the jump to Marxism-Leninism. The answers to your questions are, as others have said: communism isn’t perfect, but it is better. Read theory. And bear in mind that supporting liberalism and fascism is the reason the west is collapsing right now and the reason you are asking these questions. Marxists have at least attempted to answer these questions with theory and praxis. Liberals and fascists ignore these questions entirely or provide at best remarkably superficial, absurd, and mystical answers (“nothing has ever really changed, humans are too corrupt”).
I used to be a liberal and was radicalized because capitalism destroyed my life and I couldn’t ignore it anymore. Some texts that really made a difference were Mao’s Combat Liberalism and Stalin’s interview with HG Wells. All my life I had been told that Mao and Stalin were evil insane genocidal maniacs who only did anything good at all by accident or because they got lucky. If this was the case, then how come both of them write/speak so well? How come they say things that are so obvious and make so much sense? Is it possible that I had been lied to my entire life by people who stood to lose from a successful communist revolution (namely, the rich who control my entire society)?