this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
1139 points (87.4% liked)
Political Memes
5488 readers
3880 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think people who've enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
Read. Page 116, par. 3, “We Didn’t Realize What We Had.”
"Communist governments" have never been truly communist. Well the big ones that we know at least, I guess smaller folks like indigenous people or other ancient form of living were why more communist.
All the "communist governments" that one thinks about under that term were/are just non fair dictatorships that claim to be fair
AES countries never reached Communism, yes, but they were very much real attempts at building Socialism. A lot of bad came from them, yes, but so did a lot of good. It's important to critically analyze them as such.
Well, of course! We have to learn from every failure any human has done in the past, else we don’t get smarter.
Yes, which is why I take issue with the idea that these were not "true Communists." Some may have taken advantage of their positions, yes, and none of these attempts were or are perfect, but by and large these have been countries made up of the masses attempting to build Communism. The idea that all attempts were merely hijacked by opportunists is an easy way to avoid actually having to analyze them critically. It's a sort of analytical non-starter.
That is only your view, I can easily say that they were not true communists and still analyse why they were not a true communist systems. If I would say they where truly Communist systems, I would just lie and there would not be failures to analyse since it should have worked since they were truly communist systems.
That's a lot of nonsense if you aren't going to actually analyze anything.
What is "true" Communism?
😂how to get to that I don’t analyse?
For me true communism would be living in a group in consensus that nobody owns but the whole group together
Because you're doing a "no true Communism" bit that's just purity testing, rather than accepting failures of AES as failures of AES and successes of AES as successes of AES.
Cool, so AES is AES and thus true attempts at Communism.
True attempt to achieve communism is not the same as achieving true communism, I’d say..
Why?
What is the purpose of Communism? Communism is not "enlightenment" it isn't a religuous status, it's a process. Working to put theory to practice, and correct as you go, is Communism.
The achievement of a "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society," ie Upper-Stage Communism, as Marx puts it, is a far-future society that has to be worked towards.
I don’t think current "AES" really work in the direction "stateless" nor "classless”. Maybe "moneyless" I could see that.
But I absolutely agree that the achievement of an upper-stage Communism would be fabulous
Why do you believe AES not to be working in the direction of achieving Communism?
Because the people in power are not trying to make themselves obsolete and they all have some sort of class system that is actively maintained by the people in power
Or in which "AES" is that not the case?
The government "collapsing itself" is not Marxist in any way, why would the government shrink itself? Additionally, what do you mean by "actively maintaining a class?" Have you read Marx? That might clear up some of your confusion.
So what are the meaning of stateless and classless then?
Stateless refers to an elimination of the elements of government that uphold class society, like privateproperty rights.
Classless refers to relations to the Means of Production, ie Bourgeoisie and Proletarian. Government is an extension of the class in power, if government is fully proletarianized and there are no remnants of Capitalism, it is Classless.
"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!"
Where do you disagree with that text?
The Path to Statelessness and Classlessness
Marx envisioned a historical process through which these conditions would be achieved:
The Government’s Role
The idea that a government could be “stateless in some sort” while not working towards making itself obsolete is contradictory in Marxist terms. For Marx:
In summary, Marx’s definitions of statelessness and classlessness are intertwined with the dissolution of traditional state structures and the eradication of social classes, ultimately resulting in a society where cooperative, communal living replaces hierarchical and coercive systems of governance.
The bit on government. The State, for Marx, is the elements of Government that actively uphold Class Society, ie Private Property Rights. The role of government in AES countries should be to actively diminish class distinctions and remove the elements of the previous Class Society.
The government sort of becomes everything, ie the US post office is a government job. Trying to shrink government when the government is how everything gets made is silly.
Have you read Marx?
Fair, no I see where we disconnected, what I wanted to say with no government is, I think, equivalent to what you refer as government becomes everything
To the classless part: are social credits really something that upholds class society? Is exploitation of minorities something that upholds class society?
And no, I have not read it yet, and I did not told you prior, since I feared you would stop talking normal knowing that
Yep, Marx wrote in the 1800s using 1800s political terminology, which results in confusion today.
What do you mean by "Social Credits," and what do you mean by "exploitation of minorities?" I'd like an example, it seems like you're referring to something specific here. Either way, exploitation of minorities is an evil, anti-socialist stance, but it's important to understand that no state is stagnant, and is always progressing in some direction. If it is increasingly becoming more progressive as compared to its peers and its past self, this is a good thing. Cuba, for example, now has a more progressive Family Code than the US for LGBTQ individuals.
I'd be lying if I told you I was surprised, haha. As long as people are reasonable and willing to learn, I try to be as level-headed as possible. There's no point otherwise.
I guess I am just too china focused 😅
Cuba seems nice, in that case, have to check that out in more detail
But to have better lgptq rights than US does not seem that hard to be honest 🫣
In what way?
Generally yes, in spite of brutal blockades, they have made the best of what they have.
Certainly a low bar, but unfortunately the bar is extremely low to begin with, worldwide, and everyone has a long way to go on that front.
Well, the examples were while thinking about china
Hmm, after some research, cuba seems not very nice anymore
Seems again like a country where your only options are to fly, to comply or to risk your live demonstrating, if you disagree with a decision of the government. It seems to be a single party system, like china.
I suspect "true" Communism is something you'll only find on the pages of a book. Because in reality it goes from being a revolution, to a party, to cliques, to a power struggle, to a purge, to a dictator. And people get shot, tortured, beaten and sent to death camps every step of the way.
The point I'm making, which I think is obvious and demonstrable, is extreme left aren't just do-gooders while the extreme right are evil. It's hard to think of any communist / marxist-leninist / whatever revolutions that weren't followed by purges, gulags, education camps, progroms or what have you. In some cases, the body count was in the millions, e.g. Pol Pot.
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say "these left wing extremists are fine" because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
Thinking in terms of right and left as string with two poles is what causing all this mess Like if there would only be two views about any topic and if you are thinking "left" at one topic you have to think "left" on very different topics as well. Kinda strange in my opinion.
About this followup of revelations: you can not simply suddenly force your opinion on how humans have to live on a crowd, well, without violence, fear monger or blackmailing.
I like the way nordic european countries handle politics. They have some of the greatest democracies and many very social laws that help the poor to live normal lives. You should visit those once.
Communism isn't the goal. That's what far right thinks the far left wants. The far left wants more Universal Basic Income where everyone's needs are met. People are still allowed to go make money. Just there no homeless, which in turn should mean there's no ultra ultra wealthy.
But communism where absolutely everybody gets the same thing hasn't been argued for in a while (at least I haven't seen it past arguing with Republicans it's a bad idea).
Depends on who you ask, but I think most far left would say they are going for communism of some stripe.
I want heavy taxes on the wealthy, UBI, universal housing and healthcare, and much more regulation. I want higher union membership and more co-op business of all stripes. I don't want a central, planned economy. (I have many other not directly economic concerns.)
I'm not often accused of being far left, these days, but I have been called a communist in the past. I consider myself a democratic socialist.
That seems like Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism implies central planning along Liberal Democratic lines
I've heard it both ways. And I don't vote for labels; at least, I try to vote for policies. I'm all for redistribution from billionaires, and the very idea of "redistribution" gets me called a socialist in a lot of fora.
Sure, I suppose, but taxes aren't socialism
I 100% agree with what you've said.
The problem with other people ideologies of communism us as soon as you bring up one of those points it immediately makes you a communist and communism bad.
But yeah, allow capitalism and people to strive for a better life, just have the safety net in place for those that fall/can't climb.
Communism is very much the goal.
That's not Communism. Communism posits "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Read Critique of the Gotha Programme.
I only made that point cause that's what I keep having to argue, not that's what I actually belive. That's why I made a note saying that's what I argue against Republicans.
But again, that's what Republicans tend to think so that's what I argue. But continue going off. Cause again. I've had the conversation irl WITH REPUBLICANS thinking that's what communism is.
Why try to meet Republicans at their level? That's a more reasonable strategy for almost-radicalized liberals, and even then it can backfire.
Because I live in a bright red area, and some people I would call friends I'd rather try to set straight instead of not talk to them.