I’m not well read in Marxism so I’m probably not qualified to answer this, but the recurring issue with Communism seems to be the same as capitalism, in that it requires people to not be assholes in order to properly function.
The recurring issue with communism is that capitalist powers keep on trying to corrupt, infiltrate and sabotage popular governments.
While there’s incentive from outsider agents to control the resources in a piece of land, and the population in that area, there’s risk that some people within that population will betray their people for individual gain.
There’s no passive corruption without active corruption. Active corruption happens for individual gain in detriment of other people. Active corruption is the role of money players, the capitalists.
The recurring issue with communism is that capitalist powers keep on trying to corrupt, infiltrate and sabotage popular governments.
Idk, while capitalism meddling in communist governments is a reoccurring theme, I think blaming all problems that have occurred within communist governments on any level of outside corruption is highly reductive.
The problem with Marx is that while it points out problems and offers some solutions, it doesn’t address the way to organize a governmental hierarchy. Specifically it does not outline the required path of transforming a revolutionary government into a functional communist government.
Revolutions require a very rigid hierarchy of control and command, and most often resembles a military command structure rather than a bureaucratic one. Transitioning the state control from the hands of revolutionary militants to bureaucratic policy makers is the pitfall of any revolution, Marxist or not.
The recurring issue with Communism in practice is that it requires true equality amongst its citizens and there’s always some asshole or group of assholes who want power and dominion over others, so it seems to repeatedly fall into a practical dictatorship.
Capitalism at its best requires businesses to find and deploy the most effective and efficient means of product delivery in order to compete with each other, which means that the consumer will always have the best product at the best price allowed by the market. The problem is that greedy assholes either conglomerate competing companies into monopolies, or otherwise collude with one another to maximize their profit margins.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. - Marx in 1875.
Its not about equality, it’s about fair distribution of goods and services produced by the society. As in, it is fair that national leaders get to fly planes to travel abroad frequently,for example.
Why does Communism require “true equality amongst its citizens?” What does that even mean, in practical terms? How would a group of people take advantage of this to form a “practical dictatorship?”
Capitalism does not deploy the most efficient means of product delivery, but the most profitable. It means weaker but more profitable products are pushed, and rampant consumerism of useless trinkets is pushed for profit. Collusion and monopoly are not why Capitalism cannot work, those are merely symptoms of a broader exploitative system that naturally decays due to issues like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
What of Marx have you read? Or any leftist theorist? I can make some suggestions for reading material if you wish.
Why does Communism require “true equality amongst its citizens?” What does that even mean, in practical terms?
Do you imagine a communist system that has social classes?
How would a group of people take advantage of this to form a “practical dictatorship?”
Castro, Zedong, Putin
Capitalism does not deploy the most efficient means of product delivery, but the most profitable…
You’re arguing Communism on a philosophical level against capitalism on a practical level.
What of Marx have you read? Or any leftist theorist?
As I said, I’m not well read and unprepared for the higher level argument you are seeking here.
I can make some suggestions for reading material if you wish.
I appreciate your desire to educate, but I’m too busy being exploited by the current system to dive further into social philosophy. When you guys are ready to rise up I’ll be there, but I won’t be a part of the debate on which system we should implement going forward.
Do you imagine a communist system that has classes of people?
If you are referring to the Marxian term, ie proletarians, bourgeois, etc. Of course not. Do you instead mean people must be paid equally, and there can be no management? Also of course not, Communism isn’t a bunch of horizontal organization and equal pay.
Castro, Zedong, Putin
Putin is a Capitalist, so I am unsure of what you mean by including him here.
As for Mao and Castro, Mao lost power within the CPC over time and Castro retained power democratically, neither of which maintain your points. This appears to just be vibes.
You’re arguing Communism on a philosophical level and capitalism on a practical level.
What on Earth does that mean? I am advocating for Communism on both practical and philosophical grounds, this is just gibberish.
As I said, I’m not well read and unprepared for the higher level argument you are seeking here.
I am trying to get to a base level of understanding so we can have a conversation. I wouldn’t even call it an argument, I am just trying to get you to understand your own preconceptions.
I appreciate your desire to educate, but I’m too busy being exploited by the current system to dive further into social philosophy. When you guys are ready to rise up I’ll be there, but I won’t be a part of the debate on which system we should implement going forward.
Revolution doesn’t happen just because people vibe it into existence, it’s a consequence of deteriorating Material Conditions. If you don’t have time to read Marx, why do you have time to discuss Marxism online with strangers? This entire convo would have been better spent comprehending the bigger picture of Marxism.
No, I expect deeply unserious analysis, I just like trying to lead these people to theory. Doesn’t work all the time, obviously, but it does work sometimes.
All I see is you being toxic. You’re not leading people anywhere. People will want to stay away from your way of thinking because of all the hatred in your tone. Dial it down a bit if you want to have any impact.
Please demonstrate where this toxicity is. Please give examples of the “hatred in your tone” in this thread. Otherwise, you are poisoning the well and hiding it under pseudo-respectability garbage.
People should be able to enumerate the benefits of their preferred form of governance. They should also be able to be honest about its weaknesses and have a discussion about past failures.
I think Socialists should be like really good sales people, not just trying to get a quick sale, but trying to convert you to a lifelong happy customer. Provide the talking points and let people decide for themselves.
The benefit is that there’s at least a goal that will benefit the poorest strata of society.
Capitalism doesn’t address it at all. It’s every man for themselves and fuck everyone else. That’s textbook recipe for sick societies, like all capitalist societies on the planet. None of them work for the poorest of the people, none of them attempt to do so.
It’s crisis after crisis, with random economical meaningless inflation fear mongering to get people to hate their fellow workers. To compete for an ever decreasing pool of jobs.
My main issue with it is that it is not evidence based but that the development of the target socially is speculative It’s incredibly hard to predict such development and Marx didn’t have the tools to do it properly.
There are different kinds of work which needs to be done for our society to function. These tasks have costs for those who perform them (lost time, spent energy, danger, boredom, etc).
In pure communism, everyone works hard and everyone is given the spoils of the work we collectively provide. But it is rational for any individual to not work as hard, because he will bear less of the cost of that work, but still realize the same gain
Therefore most people tend to shirk their duties, and the output of the entire collective drops. In order to maintain the system, the threat of violence is introduced, and we quickly get to Stalinist purges
Your argument can be made against all forms of social services, and ignores that people work to get paid. This hasn’t panned out in your game theory favor at all.
If you’re trying to argue against higher stage Communism, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” then that also doesn’t follow. Higher stage Communism has never been achieved by any AES country, so again, your example is false.
In no reading of your statement does it follow reality.
How about instead of just saying that I am wrong, describe to me how an individual in a higher stage communist state would be prevented from slacking in his duties (and still gaining “according to his need”) without state induced violence
The Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet written within the context of Marx’s time, and the Material Conditions that came with them. They were not meant to be the solution, but a solution, and for his time period.
Reading the Communist Manifesto as a means to say Marx’s ideas are problematic by stripping them from their context and slapping them onto modern times is a disservice to Marxism.
Marxism is a frame of analysis, a philosophical method via Dialectical Materialism, and a tool for looking at how to improve whatever situation you are in. As such, further reading of Marx beyond the Manifesto is a requirement to understand what Marxists of today advocate for.
Marx’s critique of capitalism is spot on. It’s his proposed solution that is problematic
Why?
I’m not well read in Marxism so I’m probably not qualified to answer this, but the recurring issue with Communism seems to be the same as capitalism, in that it requires people to not be assholes in order to properly function.
The recurring issue with communism is that capitalist powers keep on trying to corrupt, infiltrate and sabotage popular governments.
While there’s incentive from outsider agents to control the resources in a piece of land, and the population in that area, there’s risk that some people within that population will betray their people for individual gain.
There’s no passive corruption without active corruption. Active corruption happens for individual gain in detriment of other people. Active corruption is the role of money players, the capitalists.
Idk, while capitalism meddling in communist governments is a reoccurring theme, I think blaming all problems that have occurred within communist governments on any level of outside corruption is highly reductive.
The problem with Marx is that while it points out problems and offers some solutions, it doesn’t address the way to organize a governmental hierarchy. Specifically it does not outline the required path of transforming a revolutionary government into a functional communist government.
Revolutions require a very rigid hierarchy of control and command, and most often resembles a military command structure rather than a bureaucratic one. Transitioning the state control from the hands of revolutionary militants to bureaucratic policy makers is the pitfall of any revolution, Marxist or not.
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4527265
There’s a comment someone made in lemmygrad that reminded of your reply to me.
Sorry to not address it point by point, but I hope the link is useful. I’ll try to do it later, but can’t really promise it. :D
What part of Communism “requires people to not be assholes to function?”
Why do you think Capitalism would function if people were not assholes?
The recurring issue with Communism in practice is that it requires true equality amongst its citizens and there’s always some asshole or group of assholes who want power and dominion over others, so it seems to repeatedly fall into a practical dictatorship.
Capitalism at its best requires businesses to find and deploy the most effective and efficient means of product delivery in order to compete with each other, which means that the consumer will always have the best product at the best price allowed by the market. The problem is that greedy assholes either conglomerate competing companies into monopolies, or otherwise collude with one another to maximize their profit margins.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. - Marx in 1875.
Its not about equality, it’s about fair distribution of goods and services produced by the society. As in, it is fair that national leaders get to fly planes to travel abroad frequently,for example.
Why does Communism require “true equality amongst its citizens?” What does that even mean, in practical terms? How would a group of people take advantage of this to form a “practical dictatorship?”
Capitalism does not deploy the most efficient means of product delivery, but the most profitable. It means weaker but more profitable products are pushed, and rampant consumerism of useless trinkets is pushed for profit. Collusion and monopoly are not why Capitalism cannot work, those are merely symptoms of a broader exploitative system that naturally decays due to issues like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
What of Marx have you read? Or any leftist theorist? I can make some suggestions for reading material if you wish.
Do you imagine a communist system that has social classes?
Castro, Zedong, Putin
You’re arguing Communism on a philosophical level against capitalism on a practical level.
As I said, I’m not well read and unprepared for the higher level argument you are seeking here.
I appreciate your desire to educate, but I’m too busy being exploited by the current system to dive further into social philosophy. When you guys are ready to rise up I’ll be there, but I won’t be a part of the debate on which system we should implement going forward.
If you are referring to the Marxian term, ie proletarians, bourgeois, etc. Of course not. Do you instead mean people must be paid equally, and there can be no management? Also of course not, Communism isn’t a bunch of horizontal organization and equal pay.
Putin is a Capitalist, so I am unsure of what you mean by including him here.
As for Mao and Castro, Mao lost power within the CPC over time and Castro retained power democratically, neither of which maintain your points. This appears to just be vibes.
What on Earth does that mean? I am advocating for Communism on both practical and philosophical grounds, this is just gibberish.
I am trying to get to a base level of understanding so we can have a conversation. I wouldn’t even call it an argument, I am just trying to get you to understand your own preconceptions.
Revolution doesn’t happen just because people vibe it into existence, it’s a consequence of deteriorating Material Conditions. If you don’t have time to read Marx, why do you have time to discuss Marxism online with strangers? This entire convo would have been better spent comprehending the bigger picture of Marxism.
https://www.mlreadinghub.org/study-materials/reading-list
You expect serious analysis from someone posting that comment in a communism community?
No, I expect deeply unserious analysis, I just like trying to lead these people to theory. Doesn’t work all the time, obviously, but it does work sometimes.
All I see is you being toxic. You’re not leading people anywhere. People will want to stay away from your way of thinking because of all the hatred in your tone. Dial it down a bit if you want to have any impact.
Where is the hatred? I was just asking for the base reasoning for their assertions, as they were unsupported.
Please demonstrate where this toxicity is. Please give examples of the “hatred in your tone” in this thread. Otherwise, you are poisoning the well and hiding it under pseudo-respectability garbage.
People should be able to enumerate the benefits of their preferred form of governance. They should also be able to be honest about its weaknesses and have a discussion about past failures.
I think Socialists should be like really good sales people, not just trying to get a quick sale, but trying to convert you to a lifelong happy customer. Provide the talking points and let people decide for themselves.
The benefit is that there’s at least a goal that will benefit the poorest strata of society.
Capitalism doesn’t address it at all. It’s every man for themselves and fuck everyone else. That’s textbook recipe for sick societies, like all capitalist societies on the planet. None of them work for the poorest of the people, none of them attempt to do so.
It’s crisis after crisis, with random economical meaningless inflation fear mongering to get people to hate their fellow workers. To compete for an ever decreasing pool of jobs.
Sure. It’s also worthwhile to recognize trolls and not reward their bad-faith posting by interacting with them.
All transitions to a new system are temporarily vulnerable to becoming one party, or one person dictatorships.
(there’s a video on YouTube called “rules for rulers” that explains this more).
What’s the use of multiple parties? To make sure that the interests of the imperialist bourgeois powers of the society are represented?
It is not game theoretically aligned. It’s not his fault, Game Theory didn’t really get going until after his death
Yes, Matpat will save Marxism.
No, seriously, what problems does Marxism have, and how does Game Theory “solve” them or point them out?
My main issue with it is that it is not evidence based but that the development of the target socially is speculative It’s incredibly hard to predict such development and Marx didn’t have the tools to do it properly.
What do you mean?
There are different kinds of work which needs to be done for our society to function. These tasks have costs for those who perform them (lost time, spent energy, danger, boredom, etc).
In pure communism, everyone works hard and everyone is given the spoils of the work we collectively provide. But it is rational for any individual to not work as hard, because he will bear less of the cost of that work, but still realize the same gain
Therefore most people tend to shirk their duties, and the output of the entire collective drops. In order to maintain the system, the threat of violence is introduced, and we quickly get to Stalinist purges
They wouldn’t realise the same gain.
More valuable work is better paid. Skilled management is likely to get better pay than menial work. Dangerous jobs get better pay than safer jobs.
You are not allowed to become rich by exploiting others, though.
Ah, vibes-based analysis that ignores all of Marxist theory on how a transition to Communism would work, and just vibes out how it would be. Nice.
What I described is exactly how it played out in about a dozen instances where a transition to communism was tried
Has it? Has it truly?
Your argument can be made against all forms of social services, and ignores that people work to get paid. This hasn’t panned out in your game theory favor at all.
If you’re trying to argue against higher stage Communism, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” then that also doesn’t follow. Higher stage Communism has never been achieved by any AES country, so again, your example is false.
In no reading of your statement does it follow reality.
How about instead of just saying that I am wrong, describe to me how an individual in a higher stage communist state would be prevented from slacking in his duties (and still gaining “according to his need”) without state induced violence
This is the correct answer. Anyone that disagrees should go read the communist manifesto and come back to see if they still disagree.
The issues are with his solutions. He correctly calls out all the issues with capitalism. Just nails them.
But his ideas about how to solve it by abolishing land rights and the entire inheritance system is problematic, as the OP says.
Not that it couldn’t work in a vacuum, but it’s not a realistic solution to our problem.
A much more well considered approach of proposed solutions can be found in the book: Utopia for realists.
The Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet written within the context of Marx’s time, and the Material Conditions that came with them. They were not meant to be the solution, but a solution, and for his time period.
Reading the Communist Manifesto as a means to say Marx’s ideas are problematic by stripping them from their context and slapping them onto modern times is a disservice to Marxism.
Marxism is a frame of analysis, a philosophical method via Dialectical Materialism, and a tool for looking at how to improve whatever situation you are in. As such, further reading of Marx beyond the Manifesto is a requirement to understand what Marxists of today advocate for.