Permanently Deleted

Permanently Deleted

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

581 comments

Is communism morally good?
- I'm a Marxist. My perspective on history, my theory of change, beliefs about capitalism and socialism, do not require morality.
  The belief in the role the proletariat will play in transforming society is not based on moral superiority. It is based on the existence of class conflict and that they are the class with revolutionary potentional.
  Capitalism is not a stable or static system, and it cannot sustain itself forever because its existence demands perpetual growth. As it reaches this endpoint, the contridictions in this system heighten, as will the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois. The proletariat will prevail, not for any moral reason, but because they are the class on which the entire system relies.
  As a human being i feel its a vastly morally superior project. But my feeling is completely immaterial, as is whatever judgment you place on my opinion
  
  So why work for communism if it's inevitable?
  
  because it's the end of capitalism that's inevitable, not communism. we could also wind up with the common ruin of the contending classes and a dead world
  
  Hmm. Okay, so capitalism will drive us to extinction unless stopped?
  
  Not necessarily extinction, but certainly ruin. It’s already doing that with the climate crisis, but even if we could make that magically disappear today, the contradictions of capitalism lead only to a) the overthrow of capitalism and the capitalist class by the workers (socialism/communism) or b) the capitalist class resorts to ultraviolence to maintain its power and brings ruination to society (fascism)
  
  You don't think small appeasement of the masses is possible? I think the apparatus has gotten pretty good at giving just enough comfort that it's too much work to shift the status quo.
  
  concessions have been increasingly off the table since 1991
  https://redsails.org/concessions/
  
  It has been possible so far in the imperial core, owing to superprofits gained by exploiting the workers of other countries outside of the imperial core. However, the inherent contradictions of capitalism like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall mean that this can’t be sustained indefinitely, especially not once the third world shakes off the imperialists and refuses to be exploited any longer.
  
  Capitalism is doing such a great job mitigating climate change.
  
  Because the entire theory of change is struggle
  
  But why struggle for it? If it's going to happen anyways, may as well do what's best for yourself and not stick your head up.
  
  Because I'm not a lib like you.
  But seriously, the point i was making was not about inevitability. It was making a distinction that Marxism as an ideology is based on scientific principles (this was a differentiation from early utopian socialists). We believe in theory, practice, and refinement of theory informed by practice.
  While i as an individual believe that communism is morally correct, that belief is immaterial from the truth that Marxism illuminates
  
  So how does the truth Marxism illuminates determine policy decisions?
  
  Can you rephrase the question? Are you asking how Marxists in positions of power, like in the former USSR or China use Marxism to determine policy?
  
  Is this you being proud about being a coward?
- yes
  
  So would actions by nations that move towards that good also be good?
  Also, what do you mean by communism? Does it need to be democratic communism, or is USSR authoritarianism fine, or China's communism in name only? What makes communism good?
  
  https://redsails.org/why-marxism/
  not that you'll read it, this is for other people who don't have their head up their ass
  
  Thanks, that seems a little more digestible than the manifesto.
  
  The Manifesto is a short pamphlet designed to be easily digestible
  
  As an ML I fully agree with this take. The manifesto is kind of shit
  
  Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a much better introduction to Marxism.
  
  All socialism is democratic. It is a broadening of democracy and a transfer from a dictatorship of the bourgeois to a dictatorship of the proletariat. There us no "authoritarian" communism
  
  So is drnk not communist or not authoritarian?
  
  Do you mean the DPRK? Yes they are a socialist nation
  
  You think their hereditary supreme leadership is democratic?
  
  That's not what they practice there. That's just what your lib propaganda tells you
  
  Really? Is the supreme leader actually democracy elected?
  
  They actually do have elections in the DPRK. The reason the Kims are so prominent goes back to Kim Il Sung. He led resistance against the Japanese colonizers and then against the US, as well as developing the political philosophy of their communist party called Juche. The Korean war killed something like 10 to 20 percent or the entire population and leveled nearky every building in the North.
  So, Kim Il Sung is basically George Washington, Thomas Jeffferson, Eisenhower, Lincoln, all those fucks you libs love all roled into one, and he led the country in building back from the extreme destruction caused by the US imperialists.
  This is why they have an outsized prominence. Their actual political power is much less than when Sung was alive. Both Jong-il and Jong-Un divested power from their position onto other roles not held by them or the family. They still have ceremonial head of state duties.
  I'm not an expert on Juche or the DPRK but there are comrades here that know much, much more. And i invite them to correct me in case i have any of this wrong off the top of my head.
  They do have elections, and they aren't a monarchy, contrary to your propoganda
  
  They do seem to have lifetime terms.
  
  are you gonna show us your penis yet or what
  
  No
  
  sad
  
  Sorry to disappoint

581 comments