this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
1266 points (94.1% liked)
memes
10675 readers
1905 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actually I find that it allows more range of Socialism strains to be discussed. A lot of Marxists tend to look rather poorly at any mixed Socialism blends as either heretical or as liminal states with Communism as a complete end goal instead of being legitimate in their own right.
Where ever Marxism tends to particularly flourish erasure of a lot of other Socialist philosophy tends to be the norm. Socialism is a big range of different veiws of how publicly held and private property domains intermix with a lot of foundational philosophy some of which pre-dates or were contemporaries of Marx. Marx may have coined the term but it's important to remember that when he was writing his work there were specific peers in his feild that some of it was directed at who he was sort of in agreement with and sort of not. Many wholeheartedly adopted his term for the broad stroke of their own philosophy even though they would later be at loggerheads about details. Later in life Marx really did not get along with other prominent Socialists of his era. Those who subscribe very heavily to his text tend to follow his tradition of being very dismissive of other Socialist strains and rather combative because the text is very fiery and segments well into calls for violence
If one wants to go talk Marxism the other instances are always there and are generally better venues. It's valuable to have spaces that have differences so that other schools of political thought have air. As far as Marxists here go, since having a group that usually denies others the very words they use to self identify by, demanding they be called illegitimate, sucks all the air from the room they are generally not particularly welcome in the space unless they demonstrate they can play nice with others.
They’re gonna screenshot this and circle-jerk all over it. I guarantee it. Because that’s all they do. They’re not interested in actually implementing incremental steps toward socialism, and also not interested in growing the left so that a revolution is possible. So they’re just miserable little fucks who shit on everyone who’s not a bloodthirsty tyrant.
It really is a hype based philosophy. I look at Marx as a bit of a stochastic terrorist of his time. His ideas aren't dangerous particularly taken with a grain of salt but because they are written to lead one to become angrier and angrier without being given an outlet to work towards things on a constructive way Communist communities start hopeful and sour over time.
He always dances around how that limiting of other classes authority and individual inequities is going to be handled because the answer... Is violence. A generous read is that he is naive to believe everyone will see he's right and kumbaya the whole thing into existence but more likely because of the language he uses other places he's flat out for the nessisary purge required to achieve his aims.
Issue being is anarchic mobs are generally fairly weak... So to make a successful change you basically need paramilitary leaderships and military like heirachy to achieve that purge... And then so far in history that paramilitary heirachy never has effectively dissolved after the fact because if everybody is doing communism correctly creating competeting heirachy is antithetical... You are just supposed to ignore that the paramilitary heirachy that becomes the state isn't strictly playing by Marx's rules either but by then a population isn't in a position to argue.
Which is why the “gradual cultural changes until we have the numbers to overcome the capitalists” approach is the answer. It’s not “extreme” or “cool” or “tough” or “glorious” but it is going to be the only effective long term method of achieving lasting socialism.
We saw how merely electing a black man set off the reactionaries and got Nazis marching in the streets again. Imagine the reaction to an actual attempt at violent revolution when we don’t have the numbers to support us?
And how do we get the numbers, eh? By calling liberals “shitlibs” and banning them from discussion? By eliminating the possibility of bringing them further to the left?
We need numbers and overall cultural changes. Which is FINALLY happening thanks to social media.
The PRC is an example of a Socialist Market Economy, it isn't fully socialized. What Marxists take issue with is Dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie vs Dictatorships of the Proletariat.
Marx did not coin the term. Marx was simply the most relevant and influential Socialist, and history has proven his ideas to be correct.
It depends on what ideas you deem to be "correct". He was very good at elucidation of the nature of how European models of property rights were impacting large swaths of the population at large... But its difficult to say if he had everything figured out because his "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't seem to ever actualize in a lasting fashion. It usually ends up as an authoritarian state arguably because the system is vulnerable to the first group that decides to break faith with the covenant. A lot of Communist hopefuls tend to either take the examples of this happening as "not true Communism" or try to minimize the bad aspects of regimes that adopted the principles... It does seem once power is too laterally spread it becomes weak to any hierarchy that as long as they can talk a good game and use Marxist language.
In either case a lot of us would not call those outcomes "proven correct". I would say he had some very lasting ideas which are useful tools... But the fact that none of the places where attempted enactment have particularly lived up to his hype means that like a lot of philosophy of his time that the answers are a lot more complex and nuanced than he could have forseen.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the DotP and Communist history in general. The PRC has a DotP, the USSR did, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, etc. All have a DotP. Read Why do Marxists fail to bring about the "Worker's Paradise?" You have an odd, idealistic idea of Marxism that even Marx would deny.
This is just a bunch of gestures. The reality is that AES states are truly guided by Marxism, and are true attempts at Communism, but haven't made it to the Communist stage of development.
They have absolutely lived up to the hype, coming with drastic reductions in poverty, wealth inequality, increases in life expectancy, housing rates, ending famines, free healthcare and education, democratization, and more. Please, read Blackshirts and Reds.
Why are you including things which have not yet made it to the Communist stage of development as examples of success of Marxist theory? That isn't a proof that Communism is great yet. It's calling the experiment before actually seeing if it works.
And I am not quick to call the USSR or Cuba particularly Dictatorships of the Proletariat. They became actual Dictatorships that carried forward the heirachy of the paramilitary organizations that spawned them never ceeding them to the workers councils like they were supposed to do instead creating new dynasties of career politicians....Career politicians of a one party state are not "working class".
Because Marxism isn't Utopian. Marxism isn't a grand idea of a just society, but a theory of historical development. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, this is basic Marxism.
No. Communism is not an "experiment." Marx didn't come up with Communism as a grand society to implement, but saw how one Mode of Production gives way to the next, ie how Capitalism monopolizes into socialized syndicates over time, reaching central planning after proletarian revolution.
They were not dictatorships.
Cooperarives aren't Marxism.
I suggest reading Why do Marxists fail to create the "Worker's Paradise?" You have an anti-Marxist idea of what Socialism and Communism are. I also suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds to debunk anticommunist myths. I know I recommended both texts, and I know you didn't read them. You really should!