Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.

Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.

One of the key aspects of Marxism isn’t just about state control or central planning, it’s about the active involvement of the working class in managing production and society. If a state is controlled by a small elite, even if it calls itself socialist, it risks becoming a form of state capitalism rather than true worker control.

This isn’t about rigid, dogmatic labels which I can’t help but notice in your assumptions of me. What is interesting is understanding material conditions and power structures. Discussing any state, does it give the workers control or whether it serves a centralized elite.

I’m not claiming that any state is “false” without evidence. It’s an examination of how power operates in those states and whether it matches the idea of socialism where workers are in control. Doesn’t Marxist analysis require questioning these things, not simply accepting a label?

In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting “on their behalf.” State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.

As for beliefs, Marx’s critique of religion as “the opiate of the masses” doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.

As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.

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.

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?

The claim that the comment “is slop” might overlook socialism and the role of education in class struggle. According to Marxism, socialism is about dismantling class structures and empowering the working class to control production and governance. Education under socialism should awaken revolutionary consciousness, not simply train workers to serve the system.

Marx warned that the ruling class controls both production and ideas to maintain power. A true socialist education system would encourage people to challenge these structures, not support them.

Educated people won’t stay obedient. That’s why reactionary powers historically avoid aiming for truly educated masses—they prefer a controlled education system that reinforces their ideology, not one that fosters critical thinking or revolutionary action.

China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote? True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures, but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.

As Marxist theory teaches us, the ruling class controls not just the means of production but also the means of ideas. The flex here is not in building ‘education power,’ but in demonstrating the capacity to shape minds for the future workforce, ensuring stability within their system of production and governance. In this context, the plan isn’t just about making smarter citizens; it’s about making a more compliant society under the guise of progress.

Wonder why Bezos’ media channel, aligned with Trump, aligned with etc. is the only source on this…

Meanwhile the investigators in question deny this because of course they deny and we can’t trust those either.

Lol the article even has community notes

The comments overwhelmingly express skepticism about the conclusion that undersea cable damage was caused by maritime accidents rather than Russian sabotage. Many commenters argue that it is implausible for ships to accidentally drag anchors for long distances without noticing, suggesting intentional actions instead. There is a strong sentiment that the article’s headline misrepresents the content, with accusations of spreading misinformation and downplaying potential Russian involvement.

Interesting indeed, both countries’ governments don’t want truths out

The alliance between Putin and Trump is a classic example of imperialist collusion, driven by their shared goal to consolidate power and weaken global resistance to their agendas. This partnership, rooted in the contradictions of capitalism, has always been about advancing the interests of oligarchs, not the people.

Putin seeks to rewrite the international order to secure Russia’s dominance, while Trump’s rhetoric about “ending the war” serves as a smokescreen for reducing U.S. costs and influence-shifting. Both pursue imperialist objectives under the guise of diplomacy, ensuring the working class in Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. pays the price.

Marxist analysis reveals that such alliances inevitably crumble under their internal contradictions. This “summit” isn’t about peace but the division of spoils among ruling classes only perpetuating war and exploitation.

Lithuania’s approach reveals a clear contradiction in the context of imperialism. Acknowledging China as undemocratic while seeking “normal” relations highlights the struggle of smaller nations under global capitalism to navigate between principle and necessity.

This reflects the subjugation of weaker states to imperialist powers. Pretending China’s authoritarianism and expansionism are irrelevant is not diplomacy but a concession to capitalist imperialism. History shows us that alliances with empires are inherently unstable and can collapse overnight.

Can Lithuania uphold revolutionary principles and expose China’s nature or succumb to normalization that strengthens global capitalist dominance?