"Don't worry guys, the Vanguard(tm) will totally let us skip the whole 'bourgeois democracy' phase of things and definitely not devolve into a fascist state capitalist regime" : politicalmemes

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 62 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Much as I love a good dunk on the tankies, I find Marxism a bit lackluster in this day and age.

Marx was an important thinker for his time, and made important insights on the nature of capitalist economies, but he also lived over 100 years ago. Practically the entire field of economics developed after this point, not to mention a lot of relevant history and struggle related to his ideas.

So go ahead, read Marx, read Lenin, read whoever. But place them in the proper historical context. We’ve learned much about the world since these people lived, and the world has changed as well. They weren’t prophets whose sacred words we must follow, just a few voices among many. Take what is true and useful and discard what has been disproven.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Well, as Marx once said, "If there is one thing that is certain, it is that I am not a Marxist."

Marx recognized his place in the grand scheme of things as a contributor to socialist thought, not a prophet or final arbiter of socialist theory. I find that very noble and far-sighted (ironically?).

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, well this comment was directed mainly at Marxists, not Marx himself. He seems like he was a mostly reasonable person, even if a few of his ideas were disagreeable to me.

I also just generally think naming your entire philosophy after one person suggests a certain level of dogmatism. You don’t have to call yourself a Marxist to think Marx had a lot of good and important ideas. Humans are very prone to deifying people and it’s a dangerous and anti-intellectual urge.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago

Ha! Read this after I commented the other.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

Well said.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 28 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not to insult anyone's philosophies or anything, but it's always weirded me out how socialists name their ideologies after people, instead of what they represent. Anarchist philosophies are called things like mutualism, market anarchist, syndicalism, platformism, et cetera. Socialist philosophies are Marxism, Leninism, De Leonism, et cetera. Again, not shitting on the philosophies themselves, just the naming tradition, and how psychologically I think that might help that whole image of dogmatic attachment to the thinker, instead of the thought.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Doesn't seem weird to me. Things are routinely named after their creators/discoverers/proponents in STEM. Nobody thinks you're being dogmatic if you talk about Newtonian gravity or Fourier transformations. Why should political philosophy be different?

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 months ago

It's not that it seems to be weird, per se, more that it adds to that image of dogmatic attachment that leftists often have. In addition, cults of personality are a real thing, and sometimes it can be difficult to separate thinker from thought, especially when the thinker is centralized in the philosophy. At least, feels that way to me. In the stem fields, no one is going to argue that we must have a focus on God in the sciences, for instance, just because Newton was religious. That's not the subject of discussion when talking about gravity, it's containted pretty tightly to gravity and it's explanation using observable, repeatable experimentation. Whereas it's pretty common within Marxist communities that one must be an atheist to be a Marxist, as Marx was an atheist and talked about the abolishment of the church. Political philosophy isn't as far removed from religious philosophy as we would often like to think.

Big ass asterisk on this comment: I'm currently sick, and feel like I'm not explaining myself well at all. Got that brain fog.

[–] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That which you describe is not socialism. Marx, Lenin, Mao, ho chi min, ect. were communists and their acts were meant to build up to communism. They believed that a command economy with socialistic entities controlling industry were a good tool to do so (save for Marx). Their philosophy was not sincerly socialist however they simply saw it as a means to an ends. A step in the evolution towards their goal.

Seperatly, communism which can be described as a moneyless, stateless, classless system where resources are distributed according to need first then want and ability to redistribute is an anarchist solution. Sure, they never got there, but this is what they were trying to build towards. They were, fundamentally, anarchists. They simply believed that an authoritarian "vanguard" was needed to get society to a point where it could form this anarchistic solution by overthrowing the vanguard.

Lastly, syndicalism is arguably not an anarchistic movement as it's not even really a cohesive idiology. It's moreso descriptive of common ideas than proscriptive and can work with both a regulated economy with an organized government or without. Thus the term anarch-syndacalist

As for the naming I tend to agree. Though the reasoning for the name is understandable. Each had a different idea on how communism could be built and each (save for marx) were quite dependant on authoritarian, strong man tactics. On Marx though, he was the prodomenant speaker for the ideas put forward. The more generic idea present, communism, follows your prefered naming scheme.

Lastly, I'm certain I could find some mutualist variant, or market anarchist variant, named after it's progenetor. Particularly if I were to look into anarch capitalism I'm sure it's present

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay, starting at the end there. Anarcho capitalism is not anarchism, and is besides the point when discussing any actually libertarian philosophy. Just gotta throw that out there. And while I'm sure you may be able to find some trend in the libertarian left that's named for the thinker, the general trend is to name for the thought.

Also, re socialism vs communism: until Stalin, the terms were effectively synonyms. There were discussions of the higher and lower phases of socialism, but the idea that socialism is synonymous with the state capitalism of the USSR is something that came about when Stalin gave a speech and basically declared "we did. We achieved socialism." In the anarchist tradition, we still use the terms as synonyms, because we don't believe in the necessity of the transitionary state capitalist phase. The belief is that socialism (read: communism) can be achieved directly by the dismantling of the state apparatus and the creation of mutual aid networks and other alternative structures in its place. Notable, those structures need to be created before the state is dismantled. There's a lot of quibbling here, because Marxist and anarchists use a different definition of what a state is, so in theory, they're more compatible than most people belief. Which brings up the next point:

They were fundamentally anarchists

Yes and no. While it's true that they were believers in the possibility of a stateless, classless, moneyless society, the actual, functional difference between a communist and an anarchist is that an anarchist is a communist that believes we do not have to pass through some preordained transitionary state capitalism phase, and that we can achieve the goal of communism through direct action by the proletariat, and not have it delivered from above by a new class of revolutionaries and vanguardists. So yes, end goal is the same, the means separate the actors. Essentially, almost all anarchists are communists, not all communists are anarchists.

I respect your opinion on syndicalism, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Syndicalism is anarchist tactic, arguably the most successful anarchist tactic within the US and Canada, and represents the building of the new within the shell of the old. I get where you're coming from, and I've heard the arguments before. They've never convinced me. Almost nobody has a problem considering platformism to be an anarchist philosophy, even if they disagree with it and hate it, but syndicalism gets called out as not being a cohesive ideology, and not an anarchist philosophy, or "just unionism," but the primary difference between platformism and syndicalism are linguistic and the result of translation between English and Ukrainian.

[–] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're having some issues separating your specific ideas and ideology from definitions and history here. I'll, much like you, start with your last statement. But not before thanking you for a well thought out response.

There are multiple forms of syndicalism that have existed throughout the years and though you may see them as building towards a noble goal of anarchism, that's objectively not every instances goal nor is it needed for the definition. Sure, syndicalism is incredibly helpful to build an anarchist future, but it can also end up simply building a better future inside another system. It's not about convincing you it's about describing historic acts. Once more syndicalism is descriptive of a collection of similar movements. It is not something designed by a person or group. It's descriptive, not proscriptive. Many, yes, are anarchist, but not all. Look at Canadian and American efforts who at the time were not called syndicalist but now are correctly classified as such. Look at the original french movements. This is not a calling out. Syndicalism is a fantastic method which brings out quite a lot of good. As for platformism, I'd agree, it's a form of syndicalism.

This is like stating that a builder makes homes. Sure, they can make homes, and we can agree they should, but they can also create a company HQ. They're still builders. One can say since they're not working towards a goal we agree with they are not builders, but they wouldn't be correct in a literal sense.

Now, onto socialism. As a socialist I resent the idea that socialism is synonomous with communism and disagree with it being historically thought of as such. Socialism has been distinctwidely known as distinct from communism since the 1840s, less than 10 years after it's first usage.

I believe you to be confused too by what I mean. I do not believe Stalinist russia to be socialist. That fascist authoritarian, much like another, just used that word as a bludgeon and a rallying cry. Socialism is worker control, and ownership, over industry. That is all. Though there was quite alot of worker control under the USSR I would argue under command economics the true owner was the government. The workers still had alot more power over their workplace, thus my description of it being socialistic.

no, however, stalin did not make these terms different. they've been so since the 1840s and both marx and lenin described them as such.

Socialism has been, will be, and currently is a system where the workers have control and ownership over industry. I see no reason to conflate it with communism, a money-less, classless, stateless system where resources are distributed equitably. That would make the term meaningless.

Lastly, on anarchism, that is a word with a fairly well defined definition too. Anarchism is simply any anti-hirachical system that is fundamentally against any system of authority. We can agree that an anarcho-capitalist sociaty would quickly devolve into a system with well defined authorities but at that point it would nolonger be anarcho-capitalist. The system as defined is an anarchist solution. It's just an increadibly stupid one that'll instantly implode unlike more well thought out forms. I'll be clear here, though I am not an anarchist I do see reason in the communist form of anarchist movements.

As for communism differing from anarchism, your example is a-historic. Since you speak on a vanguard party, I assume you mean leninism as marx did not write on this. Leninists, maoists, etc, did not believe it had to pass though capitalism. Quite the opposite they thought a vanguard party could skip this part. What you describe as anarchism, direct action by the prolatariate, is also part of leninism as he thought the same. He simply believed that the prolatariate needed to be spurred to action by increasing their quality of life and education before they overtake the vanguard party in a second, violant revolt. It seems that you do conflate the two ideas of anarchism and communism when it comes to the end goal though differentiate only on methodology. This is not the case however as one can have a system with no authority, no hyrarchy, which still has money as long as that money is evenly distributed and wealth isn't allowed to accrue. Or, where a state still exists, but only exists through direct democracy on each action. Both would be poor solutions but still anarchist solutions.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay, there are several points here where I believe you are confused as to my meaning. Likely my fault for not being clear in my explanations.

I'd also like to thank you for your reply. I'd like to think of you as a comrade. While I'm not a ML or MLM, I do believe in left unity, to a greater or lesser extent.

Now I'd like to ask you a favor. I'm sick, and frankly, exhausted. I don't have the energy to reply properly tonight. Mind giving this a bump tomorrow afternoon? 16ish hours from now, at your convenience. Otherwise, with the brain fog, I'll forget.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 7 points 3 months ago

David Ellerman's modernization of the classical laborists' argument against capitalism is significantly more powerful than modern Marxism.

Marx's claim that private property is the root of capitalist appropriation has been disproven in modern theories of capitalism's property rights structure. Private property plays a role in giving bargain power to get favorable terms, but the ultimate legal basis of capitalist appropriation is the employer-employee contract

@politicalmemes

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Wait. I'm ignorant about this stuff. Can someone explain please?

[–] platypode@sh.itjust.works 65 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

At a super rough gloss:

Pure Marxism encompasses two basic theories: Marx's critique of capitalist economics, which he argues are predicated on unjust material distributions which are employed by the owning class to steal value from the working class by controlling the means of production; and his proposed alternative, wherein the workers own the means of production and exist in a stateless, classless worker's paradise ("communism").

Notably lacking in Marx's work is a compelling plan for how to move from capitalism to communism. Enter Leninism: to transition, the so-called "vanguard party" will seize control and establish a total dictatorship to wholly quash capitalism and bring the society into alignment towards communism; when this is achieved, the vanguard party is supposed to relinquish control and the worker's utopia may commence.

This school of thought, deemed Marxism-Leninism, is the nominal philosophy underpinning many modern states that bill themselves as communist, including the USSR and the CCP. While on paper it provides a feasible path to the worker's utopia, critics argue that in practice the vanguard party fails to relinquish control, establish themselves as the new owning class, and operate a fundamentally capitalist regime under the trappings of communism.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 months ago

Wow that's a great explanation! Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to write this. It's a lot more clear now.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Orthodox Marxism believes that societies develop through different modes of production, each one building the foundations for the next - feudalism builds the foundation for capitalism, which overthrows it; capitalism builds the foundation for socialism, which overthrows capitalism in turn.

Marxist-Leninists believe that you can skip the whole pesky "capitalist accumulation" bit if you just believe really hard with a small group of dedicated ideologues (the vanguard party), and that if you give all power to this vanguard, it will DEFINITELY turn into a worker's state. Somehow. Someday. Seemingly, though, every time MLs have tried this, it's devolved into a fascist state or a capitalist oligarchy.

Very curious. I'm sure this isn't some flaw in their brilliant planning. Maybe they didn't believe hard enough.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And the beauty of such an excellent summary is that it's all historically based. So many things look good on paper but never factor human nature—which coincidentally loves ignoring history and repeating it's mistakes.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can't have a hierarchical society without the problems with hierarchy

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Even if you aim to not have one, one will naturally form. Then you gotta enforce it, which ironically creates it, and an authority becomes elite through power or wealth, etc. Pick any social ism you like and that's the natural outcome. Millions of years of nature can't be suddenly undone by an idea or school of thought. The issue has always been us and ideas of a better society never factor in that it's for humans that be all humany.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hierarchies aren't as hard-coded into humanity as you think it is. There are non-hierarchical societies still existing today, like immediate-return hunter-gatherers.

The environment of a society forms their ideology. Not some vague notion of "human nature". The question is: how do we create the conditions for a free society to form out of the current one?

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (7 children)

A reduction in population to return to numbers we thrived in, so that you are once again in a society of just 50 or so others working like a single organism, all with value and purpose. A pack, a tribe, a village, a community; whatever you want to call that instilled natural concept we do well in.

But you get those numbers up just a bit, well we know what happens.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I knew I didn’t like Leninism, but it was moreso because I hate totalitarian regimes. TIL about the vanguard and it’s purpose, thanks for that.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No problem!

The worst part is I really do understand the temptation of that kind of thinking - "If only I was in charge, if only the people who were on my side were in charge, we know exactly what's wrong and we know what to do to fix it!" - but societies operate according to the way their interests are structured, and no amount of ideological fervor can change that.

Vanguard parties pretty inevitably turn against worker's democracy, because people are fickle and will not keep them in total power indefinitely (and gods know leftists love infighting), but in doing so, they set up their own interests in opposition to the interests of the workers. At that point, it's just a matter of time, the clock ticking until despotic clientism of a very feudal sort reasserts itself.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s kind of like the concept of the benevolent dictator.

…benevolent to whom?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I mean, it’s kind of like the concept of the benevolent dictator.

…benevolent to whom?

My favorite example of the flaw in this thinking is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

An incredibly brilliant, driven, and ruthless man. Wildly popular, unmatched power, friendless workaholic, insane charisma, genuine ideological dedication, incredibly well-read, deeply involved with coordinating with experts on every facet of society, cult of personality, the works. And though he could do great things for Turkiye, he still could not fundamentally change its power structures without undermining his own power - but if he undermined his own power, he could not guarantee that the power structures would change to his liking.

It's a fundamental flaw in the accumulation of power in a single institution (such as a strongman/dictator/vanguard party/etc). Accumulating power causes society to form around the actual locus of power, regardless of how that power tries to redirect society.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] carpet@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

i really appreciate the discussion here but holy hell y'all, is name-calling and vulgarity an essential component of leftist infighting or just tradition? just seems like we could save the vitriol for the bourgeoisie.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago

Look at this class traitor, trying to soften the only true leftists, the most opinionated version of Redditors.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

Didn't you know? The Internet is only for porn and being dicks to people with beliefs slightly different from your own. /s

Kindness rarely costs anything.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 months ago

Alot of the criticism of Stalin was basically already laid out by Bakunin before Lenin so maybe the second face for both

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

cries

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

Mom and Dad are fighting again!

Political Memes