Skip Navigation
Flippanarchy @lemmy.dbzer0.com
db0 @lemmy.dbzer0.com

TRUE communism!

Cross-posted from "TRUE communism!" by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk @lemmy.world
PugJesus @lemmy.world

TRUE communism!
Political Memes @lemmy.world
Muad'dib @sopuli.xyz

TRUE communism!

You're viewing a single thread.

473 comments

  • I understand that this is an anarchist comm, so you're free to post whatever you want, but I don't think it's productive to take a stance that fundamentally rests on misrepresenting what you're critiquing. Since you invoked my username in one of your comments here, I'd figure I'd give the Marxist stance its fair representation.

    First, there is no such thing as "true communism." The obsession over purity in politics is a result of dogmatism and book workship.

    Secondly, for Marxists, the stance isn't that you "do a state" and then "stop doing the state." For Marxists, not just Marxist-Leninists, the state is purely a body that resolves class contradictions through class oppression. It isn't hierarchy, and it isn't organization. Communism in the marxist conception, as a stateless society, is stateless in that once all property is collectively owned and planned, there is no class distinction. Administration remains, and is not to whither, as that's a necessary product of mass, industrialized production.

    Taking that into account, the state can only disappear if all class disappears, and class cannot be abolished until all global production is collectivized. There has never been that point, you cannot have communism in one country. You can be socialist, in that public property can be the principle aspect of the economy and the state can be proletarian in character, but the state can never whither until all states are socialist, interconnected, and borders fading away into one democratic system.

    Socialist countries like the PRC do rely on commodity production to engage with the global economy, as they must for the time being. They can't achieve a global system as one single country. As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character. You cannot "declare socialized production" with the stroke of a pen, it's something that must arise from development. That doesn't mean the character of an economy that is dominated by public ownership is capitalist, either, just that it is on the "socialist road," ie it is socialist, and working its way to higher levels of socialization until communism is achieved.

    This is all starkly different from the anarchist position, that we can develop from the outset a decentralized, horizontalist society. I'm not going to debatelord here, this is an anarchist comm, but if you're going to misrepresent the views of Marxists, then I feel you're doing a disservice by making anarchists less prepared to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.

    • That doesn't mean the character of an economy that is dominated by public ownership is capitalist, either, just that it is on the "socialist road," ie it is socialist, and working its way to higher levels of socialization until communism is achieved.

      This is the crux of the disagreement between anarchists and MLs. I would argue that state ownership - if the state does not adequately represent the will of the people - is not public ownership. A hierarchical state with a flawed and bureaucratic democracy that is prone to corruption inevitably creates and maintains a class of bureaucrats with social, political, and economic privilege. The state - in order to preserve itself - maintains a monopoly on collective ownership, preventing workers from organizing on their own terms.

      This is what anarchists mean when they call something "state capitalist." They are arguing that the state itself is a private entity pretending to represent the will of the people.

      • I'd say the real crux of the argument is in full centralization and collectivization, or full horizontalism and decentralization. The endpoints are different, so the means are different.

        Either way, I don't agree that administrators represent a class. Public property is not bourgeois property, it doesn't exist in the M-C-M' circuit of production, it's collective and planned. Even if there's administration, it's a physical, real thing. There will be flaws, there will be issues, but to let perfect be the enemy of progress is an issue. It's less about some metaphysical "will of the workers" and more about material relationships to the means of production and the sublimation of property.

        Secondly, the state doesn't "preserve itself," at least the Marxist conception of the state. The state isn't a class, it's a representative of a class, and when all property has been sublimated, there is no class, and no state. There still exists administration, but not special bodies of armed men to oppress other classes, as there are no classes to oppress.

    • It feels a bit disingenuous to hear the following:

      to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.

      I mean I got your point the other day, that I shouldn't necessarrily argue about Communistic dogma without reading all the literature, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get to that point and not just be waved away as a bad faith actor. So I was already working hard just to be told to go and read up.

      OP is using the same intensity hammer you guys got going on over there. Is it fair?

    • As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character.

      When has this been achieved in communism?

      • Cuba, USSR, PRC, etc, though these are/were socialist. Communism, in the Marxist sense (not anarchist), must be global, fully collectivized, etc, while these are examples of single states in the context of a globally capitalist-dominant system. Nevertheless, they are all examples of socialism, where as they developed as socialist countries their economies became increasingly developed and collectivized.

        The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms that set elements of the system against each other, and the PRC at one point under the Gang of Four tried to shortcut its way to communism out of a dogmatic approach to socialism, but post-reform as the PRC has been developing, it has steadily been increading the socialized character of its production. The large firms and key industries are firmly held by a proletarian state, and over time as the small and medium firms grow, these are more and more controlled by the public sector. 

        •  
                  The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms

          The USSR collapsed because of internal contradictions and oppression.

          • The former is partially true, (though not intrinsic to socialism, but the unique flaws in the later years of the soviet system), the latter, no. The large majority of the people supported the system and wished to retain it until the very end due to the social instability at the time, and the larger majority regret its fall. The "internal contradictions" were the liberal reforms that added elements embodied into the system that worked against a collectivized and planned economy.

            The soviet economy was relatively strong, but towards the end because of liberalization, as well as problems from needing to dedicate a large proportion of production to millitarization to keep parity with the US, it began to decrease the rate of growth that was so rapid earlier on.

            More importantly, it's absolutely true that the dissolution of the USSR was avoidable. The mistakes made by the soviets towards the end don't need to be repeated, we can learn from what worked so well with the socialist system while also not repeating their mistakes. The torch is carried on by countries that have learned, like Cuba, the PRC, etc.

            Marxism is a science, and is improved through practice.

            • Marxism is a political religion with sacred texts, prophets, a promised paradise on earth, and superficial pseudoscientific trappings. It has killed more people than any other ideology in history.

                1. No, political theory is not the same as religion.
                2. No, there are no sacred texts in Marxism. One of the key elements of Marxism is Dialectics, it's an ever-evolving theory. One of the more important works is Oppose Book Worship.

                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.

                1. No, Marxism does not promise "paradise on Earth," in fact it directly tackles the Utopians that tried to make such a paradise, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon.
                2. No, it doesn't have "superficial pseudoscientific trappings."
                3. No, it has succeeded in lifting billions out of extreme poverty, ended famines common to feudal countries like nationalist China and Tsarist Russia, and more. Meanwhile, liberalism created industrialized mass-murder in the Holocaust, caused Chuchill to divert food from India to the deaths of millions, has created the conditions for mass murder, genocide of Palestinians, and so much more. The death toll of liberalism, both by ratio and in total, far surpasses Marxism and it isn't close.

                You're deeply unserious.

                • Marxists will always have a wall of text full of theoretical facts and logic to point to. Practice looks very different. It means no diversity of opinion, oppression, secret police, gulag, millions of deaths.

                  Contrary to you I actually know people who have lived in socialist countries. I even have a former high ranking party member in my family.

                  lifting billions out of extreme poverty

                  Industrialization did that, not Marxism.

                  • Not only do Marxists have theory, we also have practice. Practice doesn't look different from theory, actually, you'd know this if you actually understood that Marxists reject the perfect utopian wonderland from earlier socialists like Robert Owen. There is diversity in opinion, spirited debate, and many different perspectives. The bourgeoisie is indeed oppressed, as they should be. Socialist states do indeed have prisons. The "millions of deaths" you hint at, in reality, corresponds to far fewer deaths than the victims of liberalism and capitalism.

                    I have spoken with people that grew up in socialism, and current citizens of socialist countries like the PRC. I don't rely on anecdotes for my stances, I read historical texts, statistics, track metrics, and engage with theory and practice. I don't care who your family member is, I can find Flat Earthers or those who think the US is the greatest country on the planet. What matters is the actual, on the ground facts.

                    Industrialization in a planned fashion, with a direct focus on uplifiting the proletariat, was the cause of uplifting from poverty. Without Marxism, using England as an example, capitalism skyrocketed poverty. The working class had it far worse than as independent peasants for a long time, life expectancy dropped, and it was only when the proletariat began to organize violently did concessions come and begin to eventually surpass feudalism in England. In socialist countries, the impact was immediately positive.

                    You're deeply unserious.

                    • Marxism is a good ideology if you want to stay in power and radically transform a society and economy. That kind of revolutionary transformative power also means huge mistakes are in store as well. Sure the workers remained fed by taking away the food from the peasants and causing famines. See the Holodomor and cultural revolution for examples.

                      Some of the socialist planned economies made big progress initially industrializing, providing education, and health care. They hit a wall at some point though.

                      Have you looked at the newly independent countries from decolonization in Africa and elsewhere? How did they fare compared to others?

                      You act as if unions and labor movements are unheard of in liberal capitalist countries. Their activities and the higher overall economic prosperity lead to workers in the west being overall better off than in the socialist block.

                      • That's a horrible misattribution of the famines in the early USSR and PRC, where famine was common before collectivization and industrialized farming. It wasn't a misappropriation of food, but natural causes and a government ill-equipped to overcome the force of nature without industrialized farming. See why despite the early famines, life expectancy was consistently rising, unlike England where the introduction of industrialization caused a drop in life expectancy for a long time.

                        The "higher economic prosperity" in the global north is because of imperialism. African countries are no longer traditional colonies, but are largely imperialized by western countries. The global south does the majority of the labor and production, the global north does the majority of consumption. The fact that you don't even consider that this is true means you likely have never actually engaged with Marxist theory (which, to be fair, was already obvious, just moreso now).

                        The "wall" hit by the USSR was an increase in liberalization, recovery from 20 million dying due to World War II, and having to devote a ton of resources to millitary purposes to prevent the US from nuking them outright. It wasn't because of socialism inherently. Again, see the PRC, where there's no "wall" in sight despite the economy being increasingly socialized.

                        The unions and labor movements in the global north also depended on the USSR as an example of what happens if concessions aren't given. When the USSR fell, workers rights in the global north shrank massively and wealth disparity rose massively. And, again, they depend on imperialism! The socialist bloc produced for themselves, their positive acheivements didn't depend on imperialism, but their own labor. Not true at all for the global north.

                        Again, you're deeply unserious. You have no clue what you're talking about. If I heard from 3 family members about how Biden is an ultracommunist and Trump is going to save the world, that doesn't mean shit. What matters is looking at the facts, statistics, trends, and metrics.

                        Edit: lmao, of course you're a genocide denier that supports the fascist Zionists. No wonder you don't factor in imperialism, you think it and settler-colonialism are good things. You bat for the IOF for free and say they are doing a good job of minimizing their genocide.

473 comments