Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from “a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a “prophet” but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of “prophecy” ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country’s actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.
How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation.
Yes, which is and has been practiced in AES countries. Just because higher-stage Communism, ie a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society hasn’t been reached globally yet doesn’t mean we don’t know if it will work or not.
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It also keeps being built in third-world countries, usually blockade, sanctioned, or regime changed by Western countries so it’s also hard to tell without those variables. Although so far it has a pretty good track record for equal levels of starting development.
Real everyone-eats-ice-cream-and-dances-all-day hasn’t been tried either. Just because you describe a set of circumstances doesn’t mean those circumstances can exist, and it especially doesn’t mean they can be stable long term.
Scarcity is a fact of nature. You cannot rationally distribute scarce things without knowing people’s preferences, so you either need to continuously solve the economic knowledge problem (which requires a huge state apparatus, which will be taken over by a dictator), or a means of exchanging goods between people to better suit their preferences (at which point you have invented capitalism).
I know, also I didn’t say I’m a communist fan, all I’m saying is that they rebranded totalitarian form of governments under communism so we don’t actually know if Marx communism works or it’s a flop
The Western concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism, who came from a wealthy family and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. It’s a bourgeois liberal, intentionally anticommunist construct that lumps fascism and communism in the same bucket.
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
The “black book of communism” includes german soldiers who died during WW2, it includes people who might have had 4 kids but only had 2, it includes victims of the US in vietnam.
Communism is a bit different than what those “communist” countries had. If anything it was socialism, but that still doesn’t fit completely. These “communist” countries are just one-party states in which the government controls the economy. The idea of putting the working class in power is useless if you create a government that can make decisions against the opinions of the working class. Socialist one-party state ≠ Communist democracy
Do you have a real-world example of a successful communist state? Because you may not like it, but those “communist” countries are humanities best attempts at enacting communism and they resulted in millions of people dying.
@Gigan
There are none! There's a reason pure communism is called a utopia. Because it is! While it may work for a small community of like-minded individuals, is just not scalable. The more people there are the more difference of opinion there is. @RmDebArc_5
Pure Communism, ie the formation of society after the contradictions within Socialism have been resolved, is not called a Utopia except by anti-communists.
There's a reason that all past attempts at the establishment of communist states have failed. Lenin, Mao, et al, had grand ideas steeped in Marxist teachings. All of them ended up in an authoritarian state. Cuba, North Korea, China, USSR. All failed because of the human factor.
Contradiction refers to the remaining vestiges from Capitalism, ie a State, Class, and Money. I suggest reading up on Historical Materialism and Dialectics.
Secondly, failing because of “the human factor” is a purely idealistic outlook and not a materialist analysis, you’re arguing off of vibes.
Yes, you are quite literally an idealist by citing “the Human Factor” as a necessary reason for issues faced by AES countries.
Idealism proposes the idea of unchanging Human characteristics, Materialism proposes the idea that environments shape ideas. The former is undoubdtedly unscientific, while the latter is scientific.
Fighting for a goal is not what I am referring to as Idealism.
Communism only works on paper because it assumes that the people in power are going to just happily share everything equally. Humans don’t work that way, we’re selfish, greedy, and will hurt others to get ahead. There is no difference between a capitalist and communist leader. They both live better, eat better, make more money. There’s no equality there
Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.
It’s the sociopaths who seek power that don’t work that way. The biggest success of capitalism is that the sociopaths have normalized their behavior and cast kindness as a flaw or disorder.
It’s not propaganda to acknowledge shitty people exist and will try to take advantage of any situation, it’s just basic reality when you’re out from behind a keyboard.
That’s an astonishingly immaterial, idealistic analysis.
Communism assumes people work in their best interests, and because ideas come from material environments and not from some idea of “spirit,” Humans are more cooperative in cooperative systems and competitive in competitive systems.
A Communist leader is one that is democratically accountable and production is owned by the state, therefore all “profits” are reinvested into the economy for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few. Corruption is possible, yes, but so too is legislating protections against Corruption. In Capitalism, this corruption is required to function.
No. But that doesn’t mean something like a socialist democracy couldn’t be achieved. Socialism isn’t bound to have a certain type of government and if we get rid of capitalism I would still like to have a say in what happens next
Millions less than the previous government forms, like Feudalism. Famines disappeared quickly and industrialization allowed for life expectancy to double in the USSR and Maoist China, despite issues like Civil War, World Wars, and so forth.
Did a lot go wrong? Absolutely. Were they massive improvements? Also yes.
ew a revisionist, it was REAL socialism led by REAL communists and it was based as fuck and the one that are still around are real and they are based. also theres no such thing a one party socialist state that is a myth at most u could say past and present socialist countries has a dominant political party but by no means was there only one, and other parties were and are allowed in those countries.
Yeah. You don’t get to revise away anything uncomfortable. USSR and China were socialist experiments that succeeded in raising quality of life and transforming rural countries into industrial, scientific states. If people wanna talk about what went wrong, great. Pretending they “don’t count” just puppets capitalist apologia and doesn’t help
From a theoretical point, they don’t count as communist. They entirely dropped the all-important aspect of giving power to the working class.
Both the USSR and China, in their self-described “communist” periods, were ruled with absolute power and directed by a head of state. The USSR collapsed, and modern China is about as communist as North Korea is democratic.
i was a little worried there comrade but im glad to see u have a good unstanding of just how great the PRC is, after all what could be more the democratic than the glorious DPRK.
Communism is a society without social classes, money, or a state.
Feel free to name one so-called communist country that implemented that.
The eastern block was as communist as North Korea is democratic.
They did however socialize ownership of factories etc, so they did have an authoritarian form of socialism.
Name a real-world implementation of communism that either isn’t Marxist–Lenninist, or one that is and has moved beyond the “dictatorship of the proletariat” stage. I’ll be waiting.
That’s different, because of reasons. When someone dies within a communist system that is communism’s fault. When someone dies in a capitalist system, that’s their own fault for not tugging on those bootstraps.
@Gigan@Grayox
No one died under communism because communism has never been achieved in the modern world. People died under state capitalist and state socialist authoritarian governments that people mislabel as communist because they don't know what communism is.
AES countries were and are legitimate attempts at building Communism. People have died in these countries, but at the same time many saw drastic increases in quality of life and industrialization. Dismissing AES is usually a sign of not understanding Marxism.
@Cowbee
I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren't even successful at achieving communism.
@Cowbee
Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.
@Cowbee
Achieving a global, worker-owned republic without class, money, or a state while capitalist states exist presents significant challenges. It would require widespread international cooperation, grassroots movements, and a shift in global consciousness toward socialist ideals. International solidarity, mass education and organization, and an immediate introduction of a communist economic model would make it much easier.
Yes, so I am not sure why you are criticizing AES countries for leading the effort but not achieving them yet. This is anti-dialectical reasoning, which goes directly against the philosophical aspects of Marxism.
There was not a new “beaurocratic class.” Government ownership of the Means of Production is Socialist, as profits are controlled collectively, rather than by Capitalists. Beaurocrats and state planners were not a “new class” but an extension of the workers.
The whithering away of the state is IMPOSSIBLE until global Socialism has been achieved. The USSR could not possibly have gotten rid of the military while hostile Capitalist countries existed. Additionally, Statelessness in the Marxian sense doesn’t mean no government, but a lack of instruments by which one class oppresses another.
Wage Labor did not persist for the sake of Capitalist profit, but to be used via the government, which paid for generous safety nets. To eliminate money in a Socialist state takes a long time, and cannot simply be done overnight.
I really think you need to revisit Marx. I suggest Critique of the Gotha Programme.
There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
@Cowbee
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.
@Cowbee
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.
@Cowbee
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.
The persistance of money and wages did not stand against the progress of Socialism. Again, Capitalist profit was eliminated, the state directed the products of labor, not Capitalists. Marx was not an Anarchist, he did not believe money could be done away with immediately. The USSR attempted to do away with Money, but were not yet developed enough to handle it.
It necessitates global Socialism to be achieved, as Capitalism stands against Socialism. The military cannot be done away with as long as there is Capitalism. Moving into Comminism without completing the negation of the negation, in dialectical-speak, is a mechanical transition that leaves the Socialist state open to invasion and plundering.
Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.
@Cowbee
While it's true that in a socialist society, bureaucrats could theoretically be accountable to the rest of the workers, the reality in many socialist states, including the Soviet Union, was that bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the rest of the working class which resulted in a hierarchical society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism. Additionally,...
@Cowbee
...the concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats often led to abuses and corruption, undermining the democratic ideals of socialism. Thus, while bureaucrats may theoretically be part of the working class, the way power was exercised in many socialist states did not align with the egalitarian goals of socialism.
Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. The goal of Communism is not equality! Instead, the goal is proving from everyone’s abilities to everyone’s needs.
@Cowbee
The goal of communism is equality and anti-hierarchy, quite literally the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, and resources are distributed according to need. True equality and freedom for all individuals is the goal, where everyone can contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.
Again, I am going to recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Marx specifically states that humans are not equal, else they would not be different, and thus have unequal needs and abilities. It is because of this that the goal is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” This quote specifically comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Hierarchy is unjust if it is in contradiction, if it is through a worker state it ceases to be unjust, and merely becomes what must be done. Engels elaborates on this im On Authority.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he was accepting of administration and a gradual buildup towards Communism.
@Cowbee
Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I've read it and I don't agree with it. I disagree with Marx's emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.
You could’ve said that from the start, that you aren’t a Marxist.
I don’t believe you can say that Marxism is a betrayal of Communism any more than you can say Anarchism is a betrayal of Marxism. If your entire point is that Marxist societies were not authentically Anarchist, then I am not sure why we are having this conversation. It’s both obvious and silly.
@Cowbee
Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it's not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There's no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.
Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.
I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).
@Cowbee
I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn't been given a proper chance so it's impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of...
@Cowbee
...authoritarian states that were anything but communist and all but a handful of them still exist, the rest collapsing due to various reasons.
Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.
I believe by “Libertarian Communism” you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marx’s descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.
Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism doesn't advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I'm not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.
@Radical_EgoCom@Cowbee
I am sorry to disagree. Authoritarianism has been very successful during history. It is a very stable system because it is based on the widespread use of repression and force. And that's why we need to be vigilant.
@Radical_EgoCom@Cowbee
Sorry, you are right. I missed that part of your thread.
And of course, how can you have the means of production if you don't have the ownership of your own government?
So what’s the difference between Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism?
Either way, you’re being extremely vague. Communism is impossible in one country, it must be global, and as such it must be protected. What length of time is enough to suggest a Socialist state has “failed?” What metrics determine AES countries have “failed?” How quickly must they achieve global communism to be a success? These are rhetorical questions, you don’t have to answer them all, but they do point out more of your idealism, rather than materialism.
Secondly, and the question I do want an answer to, what method do you believe can succeed in a measurably more successful way? Simply stating Libertarian Communism isn’t truly sufficient, as you have already said, Libertarian Communism has never once lasted more than a couple years, in Catalonia, or in Primitive times.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism are just different titles for the same ideology.
I disagree that communism has to be globally achieved and can't be achieved in one country. If a country can create a strong enough decentralized military and has access to the necessary resources for their survival then communism can be achieved in one country.
As I've previously stated, Libertarian Communism hasn't been given a chance to be properly implemented, mostly due to the...
I believe at that point you are making a semantical argument on what is considered centralized vs decentralized, and what is and isn’t a state. A fully unified army of similar power would defeat a decentralized army, which necessitates some level of democratic centralism, by which point you have a state. Additionally, how do you see abolishing money while being invaded by Capitalist neighbors, as has happened to all AES countries?
I don’t believe Anarchism is more likely to succeed than Marxism in establishing Communism.
@Cowbee
A military being decentralized doesn't mean that it won't be fully unified. A decentralized military doesn't imply disorganization; rather, it allows for localized decision-making while still creating a cohesive unity through collective goals and voluntary cooperation.
The abolition of money would still be possible even with threats of invasion or outright invasions by capitalist governments. In fact, removing the incentive for profit-seeking and resource exploitation inherent in...
@Cowbee
...monetary systems would strengthen defense against aggression by creating genuine solidarity and more of a focus on mutual aid and collective security.
I believe this is just vibes-based analysis that dismisses what has materially been seen when attempted in real life. I won’t say that Anarcho-Communism isn’t more beautiful of an idea, but I also don’t believe it to be practical at the scale required to defend a revolution from outside aggressors.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism can be practical at a scale required to defend a revolution from foreign defenders due to its emphasis on decentralized, community-based defense strategies that empower individuals to protect their communities collectively, which in turn creates a strong sense of solidarity and resilience against external threats.
This was tried and lasted merely 2 years in Catalonia before more organized millitaries handily beat the Anarchists. The strength of worker-movements lies in unity, not individualism. A strong sense of solidarity is nice, but ideals cannot beat proper organization.
@Cowbee
I know that the strength of workers' movements resides in unity, not individualism. Libertarian Communism, or at least Platformism, is an ideology of ideological unity first and any individualism is within the context of the greater working-class movement. It's also important to note that the Catalonian anarchists were defeated for various reasons, including external military pressure, internal divisions, and the challenges of implementing radical social change amidst broader...
@Cowbee
...political turmoil and counterrevolutionary forces. It's not correct to conclude that the Catalonian anarchist were defeated simply because their military was decentralized and that hierarchical organization is superior to non-hierarchical organization simply from this very narrow view of the conflict.
Of course they faced numerous other issues, my point is that it seems that by holding to their ideals over what is practicible, they opened themselves up to failure.
On theory vs practice, it is important to test theory against practice and adapt theory to fit practice. What remains beautiful in theory must be measured by its practicality.
@Cowbee
But they didn't hold their ideals over their practicableness, and in fact that may have been the reason why they were ultimately defeated. During the Spanish Civil War, the(CNT) and (FAI) were part of the broader Republican side, which included various leftist and anti-fascist groups. While the anarchists were initially wary of collaborating with the Republican government, they did participate in the anti-fascist coalition and the Republican government in Catalonia, known as the...
@Cowbee
...Generalitat. However, the relationship between the anarchists and the Republican government was complex and often strained. The anarchists sought to maintain their autonomy and implement their vision of a decentralized, self-managed society, which sometimes clashed with the goals and methods of the Republican authorities. There were instances of collaboration, such as the participation of anarchists in the government and the militia forces, but there were also conflicts and...
@Cowbee
...disagreements over issues such as the militarization of the militias and the centralization of power. It is completely possible that had the organization of the military been unified in a decentralized way they would not have been defeated.
@Cowbee
I haven't based a single thing on idealism or "vibes". I examined the historical events and inferred a logical conclusion based on the facts, and the facts are that ideological unity was indeed lacking and necessary among the Spanish Revolutionaries, but nothing suggests that their unity had to be based on hierarchy and centralized planning, nor does anything suggest that the CNT-FIA's methods of the organization were inferior simply because they lost because other traditionally...
@Cowbee
I never said ideas create reality, however, I do believe that ideas can shape reality through the actions of those who hold those ideas, and I completely agree with the concept of unity through organization, again, never stating the contrary.
You were idealistically stating that more decentralization would have helped the Anarchists despite material evidence to the contrary. Hierarchy is not a bad thint, unjust hierarchy is.
@Cowbee
Hierarchy is a bad thing as it perpetuates inequality and oppression by allowing certain people to have more power than others. Not only would a system where power is decentralized be better in terms of eliminating inequality and oppression, but such a system would be more in line with communism's goal of creating a classless society.
Hierarchy does not perpetuate inequality, accumulation does. Hierarchy without accumulation and democratically accountable does not perpetuate inequality.
A decentralized system is not necessarily better at addressing systems of inequality or oppression.
Decentralized or Centralized makes no difference on creating a classless society.
@Cowbee
Hierarchy is the accumulation of power in the hands of a select minority of people. Even if there are safeguards to prevent too much power going to the top there will still always be an accumulation of power at the top of the hierarchy, thereby creating an inequality of power amongst the population. The only way to not have inequality of any kind is to get rid of hierarchy.
Hierarchy is not an accumulation of power, but authority vested in individuals. Democratically accountable, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with it.
Additionally, inequality is not an enemy of Communism. Communism is about providing for everyone and giving everyone a dignified life, not about making everyone equal. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” inherently accepts inequality of circumstances and outcomes as acceptable as long as everyone’s needs are met, which is impossible in the contradiction of Capitalism.
@Cowbee
I'm not able to take anything you say seriously. First, you claim that individuals having authority over others isn't an accumulation of power even though a person with authority would have to have power over others to have authority over them, and then you claim that communism is compatible with inequality, which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard a communist claim. You sound like a revisionist.
Accumulation means increasing, it does not mean static power vested democratically. Capitalists accumulate via an endless cycle of M-C-M’, which in turn swallows everything else. Elected representatives can be recalled, and even if they never are, they do not infinitely profit off the labor of others.
Please explain how “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” implies the goal is equality, and not satisfying the needs of everyone. Equality is idealist, satisfying needs is materialist. Marx explains precisely what he means:
“But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
If anything, you are the revisionist, promoting half of Critique of the Gotha Programme and rejecting the half that isn’t Anarchism-friendly.
When you’re marrying someone you’re usually not like “lets try this and see where it goes” (that’s called dating), you’re more like “till death do us part” so yes, divorce is failure more often than not. Ending a relationship, not so much
I can understand your perspective, but I want to offer an alternative view, maybe less bound to societal preconceptions. I married my partner for many reasons, financial, wanting to raise a child together, wanting to share my life with them… But staying married for the rest of our lives is a crazy concept for us. The marriage has its purposes, but we both know that life can change and that we could decide that we had a good time, and that now the time has come to move on. A marriage is less romanticised for us, it has practical reasons. I guess being polyamorous helps with defining new relationship ideas on many levels ;)
None of those reasons require marriage, so it’s not a satisfying reason. I want to know why MARRIAGE, specifically? Just checking it off a bucket list perhaps?
It seems to me that all of the reasons they provides are all reasons to get married. Especially raising a child, given the privileges that are afforded to married parents in a lot of places (especially in the case of adoption, or IVF using a stranger’s genetic material). Something doesn’t have to require marriage for the benefits of it to outweigh the cons for a specific situation.
The question seems to me to be kind of confusing. What alternative are you comparing it to? Some sort of local structure like domestic partnership?
The post I’m replying to was acting as if they had some new wisdom from being polyamorous and their perspective on marriage. But it sounds like they’re just using it as a business move which is something a lot of non polyamorous people do as well, and nothing new. I wasn’t asking what reasons could possibly exist to get married outside of romance or whatever you’re talking about, I was asking SPECIFICALLY THEM why they bothered, with their “unique” perspective on relationships. But it seems the only actual reason they have is taxes, despite their diatribe.
Taxes alone is a valid reason. So long as there are social, financial and legal benifits to the institution then there is no argument to have. If you feel that love or religion is a requirment that I feel your concept of marraige is outdated.
No, you are a misunderstanding me. The post I’m replying to was acting as if they had some new wisdom from being polyamorous and their perspective on marriage. But it sounds like they’re just using it as a business move which is something a lot of non polyamorous people do as well, and nothing new. I wasn’t asking what reasons could possibly exist to get married outside of romance or whatever you’re talking about, I was asking SPECIFICALLY THEM why they bothered. But it seems the only actual reason they have is taxes, despite their diatribe.
In a lot of animal species, relationships are lifelong. For most of their history, humans had life long marriages in all corners of the world. Why are you calling it "a crazy concept "?
No it isn't, but it does highlight the main issue:
Communism would work if it weren't for people trying to co-opt it for power
Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism is the end goal (since, it being automated, means there should effectively be no way to hijack it), but we ain't getting there for a long time. Let's go for socialism first and work from there
That’s just human nature unfortunately. We like to help one another and hate to see another human being suffering because we know that could be us. But capitalism has conditioned and limited us out of our human nature to help one another, because either there is no profit in helping the poor or destitute, or we lack the means to help.
People are products of the environment. These influence the ideas people have, who then shape their environment which in turn further influences the ideas people have.
Being conditioned by the material conditions of Capitalism is the opposite of Idealism, it’s Materialism.
Its a realistic view of humanity, not a realistic view of the world we have allowed the greediest among us to create. You should read The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, it goes extreme in depth to explain just how wrong your nihilistic view in humanity is, cooperation is the norm, what Capitalism has created is the anomaly.
This goes into a fight over philosophy of human nature. However, since the days of the Roman republic over 2000 years ago where capitalism wasn’t even a concept, people have used political systems to consolidate and gain power over others. It is undoubtabele that there will be people who try to co-opt the system for their personal gain
I’ve been to Capitalist countries, I’ve been to Communist countries.
Guess which system has their people immigrating to the other system on rafts with their children, just to try the other system. Guess which system builds walls to keep people IN, guess which system has beggars asking for milk for their children instead of money.
Your comment isn’t the dunk you think it is when it brushes up against the harsh truth that is reality.
Bruh I’ve seen families begging for food outside of grocery stores in the United States of America. Now what communist countries had beggers asking for milk?
Every source i can find puts homelessness rates in China at max 1,000,000 and all of them say that they live in shelters, not on the streets.
Cuba had been under embargo from the USA since 1962.
Laos has a massive poverty proborm because of debt which is a capitalist construct.
That statistic on Vietnamese homeless Children is 16 years old, and every source ive found states they have been making great strides since then to fight poverty and homelessness.
You Capitalist Apologists are so blind to reality it is pathetic there are 18 capitalist countries with higher homeless populations than China. You literally have to divorce yourself from reality to attack Communism. You might as well be covered in shit, while mocking someone for having toilet paper stuck to their shoe.
Socialism is usually built from the remains of a previous brutal regime. Starvation doesn’t end overnight.
This is the case for both Russia and China. After stabilizing they had an unprecedented improvement in nutrition, longevity and such.
The same can’t be said for the vast majority of capitalist states, who still experience starvation despite being perfectly capable of feeding everyone.
If you are dissatisfied with the free thing I gave you, then I am happy to send you a refund of your purchase price. 🤷♂️
That’s my preferred strategy.
UPDATE: Before any angry cards and letters, let me clarify. When I reply this way, I learn a lot about the person I’m talking to, including whether they are prepared to have a reasonable conversation about this complex matter. The response I’m hoping for is “Well played.”, because that tells me that they recognize how ridiculous we are both being. I can work with them.
If they are merely having a tough time and needed to vent, then they’ll notice that and we can move forward.
If they are truly that entitled, then I don’t mind what happens next, because they would probably never have accepted any help I could offer them, anyway.
I was in my early 20s when the Soviet occupation collapsed here, the victims here were everyone not high up in the party.
Sure, capitalism fucking sucks but pretending the USSR was anything other than just bourgeoisie rule is delusional. The oligarchs were just called the communist party then.
Not really. You’re talking about what happened after the USSR. Which yes, was horrible for the quality of life of people who lived in numerous countries all over the globe, but that’s more of an indictment of capitalism than communism. The looting of the government coffers to privatize everything and create oligarchs was a result of the post-USSR shock therapy.
Ah, I misinterpreted you. Sorry about that. But it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re talking about without more details. Afghanistan, maybe? I get if you don’t want to dox yourself, as someone privacy minded, but it’s hard to know how to respond without more context.
Estonia but it’s not like that was not the case elsewhere in the occupied areas. Russia mostly exported resources out of there to benefit itself which is a large reason how it raised quality of life in Russia itself.
Oh ya, I should have guessed. There are a couple Baltic states that did increase in living standards and make some rapid industrialization improvements, but they also made some definite mistakes with handling some things there and trying to do some Russia centralization. It made some of those places very right leaning, which is unfortunate.
At least it generally shared technologies improvements and such with those places. It doesn’t make the USSR worse than the US, for example, which ruined basically all of South and Central America even worse than the USSR did for its neighbors. I want to emphasize that it made some big mistakes, but for some reason people contribute those mistakes to communism, when the US and other capitalist countries had even worse occupations with even worse exploitation, but for some reason that never leads to people saying capitalism is terrible and awful, etc. The world is just too propagandized by the West. The difference is that imperialism and exploitation is basically required by the capitalist system, while it’s a side effect of militarization under a siege mindset for communism. It happened, and will probably continue to happen as long as communism requires capitalism characteristics to jumpstart production, but it’s not a constant requirement of the system like capitalism’s necessity for the line to go up leading to always finding new markets and resources to take.
I never said the US was better than the USSR, I don’t really give a shit about the US. One shit country being slightly better than another one does not make it good.
I like how you characterised it as “some mistakes” . The whole famine business that ravaged the USSR was caused by sheer incompetence. A guy appointed by Stalin to manage agriculture came up with a fun idea of “communist crops won’t compete for resources” and forcing farmers to plant crops way too close. I’d say that was one of the greatest mistakes. There was also some killing the gays and some ethnic minorities but I think those were intentional.
I also don’t attribute anything to communism, only the USSR, communism hasn’t existed. I also attribute being the worst advertisement imaginable for communist to the USSR. They kinda ruined it for everyone else by calling themselves that.
You should look into south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA’s unrestrained human experimentation in the regiom perfected this ideological soft power superweapon or “strategic ideological construct”. Trying to find exactly what these kinds of things are called.
I don’t understand why anything anti capitalism these days is automatically communism. It’s such a large swing from one side to the other. I just want my taxes to pay for healthcare, infrastructure, and education instead of wars and prisons. I want to stop getting fucked by corporations that have infinitely more money than I can ever imagine. I don’t think that makes me a communist. I’m just anti-fucking-the-people. Capitalism can fuck people. Communism can fuck people too. I support Corpo-Politico-Celibacism. Stop the fucking.
Edit: Okay, fuck the people. You guys must have this figured out.
No. Moving goalposts means there is no definitive measure of completion. Communism has one. If you’ve read anything at all about it, you would know that. But hey you were told it was bad in school, and thinking for yourself is difficult. You do you.
That’s not how words work. Things mean what they are used to mean.
Y’all understand this perfectly when describing “capitalism.” That word becomes synecdoche for every level and aspect of modern reality. By definition, capitalism is only really the part where having money makes money, but nobody has any trouble understanding what you mean when you refer to its consequences and implications. Nor would you respect if libertarians split hairs about “corporatism.” Like oh, this isn’t capitalism, because it lacks X and Y and Z, which have never existed, so how dare you talk about bad things that actually happened.
It’s more that anticommunists judge Socialist states by their inability to fulfill Communist ideals at the level of development AES countries are at, as though they exist in a perfectly frozen picture absent history and trajectory.
Yeah sure dude, existing in a context is why people condemned police states.
‘People who don’t know the difference between these terms must be using the more-recognizable one as an oblique criticism of the gap between theory and practice’ is the most .ml take I have ever seen.
Condemning the USSR and PRC for not achieving a global stateless, classless, moneyless society is ridiculous. This isn’t a gap between theory and practice, lol. Communism isn’t anarchism.
Yep, but I also understand what Communists actually advocate for and understand that countries building Communism should be judged like every society: with respect to trajectory, not as a snapshot.
Communism isn’t a goal because it is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Rather, Communism is a goal because the process of getting there is to create a society benefitting all and directed for the working class, by the working class.
You have repeatedly ignored explanations of what people are doing and why, to instead engage in scoffistry at opinions sourced from the vicinity of your pelvis.
Repeated efforts to highlight how that’s what you’re doing, and get back to what people say and mean, led you to dismiss people entirely. “Perhaps what you mean isn’t worth much?” is a confession.
I asked this a little while back (and posted this previously), so I’ll pass along the answer: because Nascar is typically not associated with these leftist political leanings, and by association of new ideas with familiar imagery you might gently help someone become more open to considering these notions in good faith instead of a knee jerk reaction against it.
It’s honestly pretty clever, and if it helps these ideas find new homes in communities they weren’t always welcome in then I’d say it’s worth it.
lemmy.ml
Active