Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us

He/him or they/them, doesn’t matter too much

  • 1 Post
Joined 7 months ago
Cake day: December 31st, 2023

  • This is a fundamental and critical misunderstanding of what Communism is, and what Marx refers to as a State. Marx makes himself clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but the State for Marx isn’t just “government.” Marx was vehemontly anti-Anarchist, not out of principle disagreements, but on a practical and rational basis.

    For Marx, the State is the element of government by which class society sustains and protects itself. Ie, private property rights, and the police that protect it. Communism would have a government, its own police, and its own structures and administration through central planning. The State whithering away, as Marx puts it, is the slow lack of retaining the former elements of class society. For example, we no longer have Streetlamp Lighters, as streetlamps are electric now. This wasn’t because they were targeted and eliminated, but simply fell out of favor with the progression of society.

    Once power is obtained it’s never willingly dispersed. This has been the fate of existing all communist governments

    This right here is the crux of your misunderstanding. Carrying over from the whithering away elaboration from my last paragraph, the government is not supposed to intentionally collapse itself, it’s supposed to remain a democratic worker government, and continue to be built up over time.

    Different AES states have seen their own issues, but none of them have been due to “not willingly giving up power,” which is a fundamental misconception of how these AES States function, or what the Marxist path to Communism truly is.

  • Cowbee@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    21 minutes ago

    That is an interesting argument, but where is the proof? Economics is a very murky “science” as it is, a broad statement such as “capitalism is inherently unstable” needs some healthy data backing it up.

    Marx makes his case for it in Capital, specifically Volume 3, Chapter 13-15, though it’s easier to digest Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit. Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues. It’s more like gravity than an invisible hand, there do exist ways to push back against it, but the overall trend is negative, as the Rate of Profit falls to 0.

    The same argument could be made about communism, as an economic system it doesn’t have the best track record.

    It can’t, because Communism abolishes this system. Communism has a good track record when properly put into historical context and is definitely the correct goal to pursue.

    Socialism seems to have a pretty good track record. But even in socialism there are issues, especially around ensuring a steady supply of kids coming through, once population starts falling the cracks start appearing.

    Socialism is just the precursor to Communism. The USSR, Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc. are/were all Socialist, building towards Communism, I don’t see why you say Communism has a bad track record but Socialism has a good track record, that seems contradictory. Further still, I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.

  • I’m aware, I’m familiar with the history of the USSR. Life expectancy rose gradually throughout the history of the USSR as it industrialized, it didn’t just happen under Lenin and plummet under Stalin. Secondly, the USSR was not Imperialist in the sense of extraction, Russia didn’t have higher quality of life on the backs of other Soviet States, but was industrialized first and was a leading indicator overall.

    That’s not to say Stalin was some hero or something, or that there weren’t issues, but this gradual improvement was due to industrialization above all else.

  • Fascism is a reactionary attempt to “turn back the clock” to the glory days of Capitalism before it decayed as much. Capitalism necessarily results in crisis, at which points occasionally the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie, the “middle class,” work together against the lower classes, ie the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. It usually rises as a response to climbing Socialism as the train of thought among the Proletariat.

    It isn’t necessarily modeled after anything, history isn’t driven by ideas but Material Conditions and class conflict.

  • Cowbee@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    4 hours ago

    There are a lot of capitalist countries that haven’t collapsed yet. We’ll need longer than our lifetimes to see proof that it can never work.

    It’s more that it’s unsustainable. Collapse can be delayed, but not outright prevented as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists.

    But I suspect that people in power just aren’t good enough to keep it from going bad eventually.

    It’s already “bad,” just constantly decaying.

  • That makes no sense. How is our economic system highly controlled in the US? Corporations run rampant, with scant regulation compared to some places like Europe.

    Economic systems and Political systems do not exist independent of each other. They are intertwined.

    A government’s size being big doesn’t instantly equal less capitalism if that government doesn’t do as much as it could to reel in corporate interests.

    Sure, that’s not what I am talking about. Capitalism cannot exist without a state to verify Private Property rights.

    Case in point, our government here in the US is big but is controlled by corporate interests to such a degree that despite knowing about human made climate change since the late 60s, basically nothing has actually been done about it. Or how whenever there is any push for even a public option to live alongside private insurance, insurance companies go into overdrive running ads and paying politicians to push back against it so it never gets brought up after an election season.

    Again, my point is that stateless Capitalism does not and cannot exist.

  • I should clarify what I meant by “no violence”. I meant that, in the ideal scenario, communities build themselves up so that capitalists become less and less relevant, without exacting violence upon them. Of course, in the event that these communities get attacked by those same capitalists, defence is very reasonable.

    This is standard Revolutionary Theory, for the most part.

    The thing is when you tell people that we need a revolution, most picture storming various places, seizing assets and beating up some people in the process, which I think makes a lot of them distance themselves. Presenting a program which focuses on a peaceful development of society is I think much easier to get on board with.

    The thing is, that’s not what Revolutionary Theory entails. Revolution is a consequence, not an action. Building up parallel structures and dual power allows Leftists to help steer the Revolution when it happens.

    There’s a low to zero chance that any transition away from capitalism will be peaceful and without resistance, but I think it would be better to tell people that the we want to work towards creating a normal life, and we will encounter violent resistence along the way, than to focus on revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class. The end goal is pretty much the same, and the process might inevitably involve the same things, but the former is I think more palatable to most.

    The difference here is that you’ve engaged in sectarianism and threw Revolutionary Leftists under the bus, only to espouse much of the same rhetoric. I do believe that you would be better off coalition-building with other Leftists and trying to better explain Revolutionary Theory to those not yet familiar, as the biggest tool of Leftists is organizing.

  • One idea I really like is slowly circumventing the need for big corporations by having services provided locally. People in a given community developing skills and aiding each other to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible. Then groups of these communities can interact and potentially provide things the other one lacks.

    On board with this being consistent so far, building up parallel structures and dual-power is a core aspect of Revolutionary Leftist Theory. I do expect Capitalists to crack down on this though, to protect their interests. This happened to Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party.

    Or something like medieval guilds where people from each profession act together to practice their craft where needed, modified unions or something like that.

    Not really in line with this, seems like an odd direction, unless you’re describing Worker Councils. I still expect Capitalists to stomp this out unless Leftists fight back.

    Essentially people willingly cooperating to be able to stand up to the capitalists. They have power because we depend on them, both their services and on money which they hoard. Through cooperation and mutual aid, their power can be significantly reduced, without a high risk of violence erupting.

    So this is just Revolutionary theory, but with the added “no violence though” bit. The problem is that this situation would result in violence, and historically has, for all comparable events.

    Is this too optimistic and naive? Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that we’d in any case benefit if we started moving in that direction.

    We would benefit, you’re describing some form of Revolutionary Theory with the hope that Capitalists lay down and accept their crumbling influence.

  • Cowbee@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlMake it stop
    6 hours ago

    Yep, they had 3 comments total, and the majority where outright telling me to “fuck off,” lol

    Unfortunately, has a problem with anticommunism, though not as bad as certain other instances like

  • Cowbee@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    7 hours ago

    Yes, sadly. During the dissolution of the USSR, millions of people died, literacy rates plumetted, safety nets were plundered by opportunistic Capitalists, and the State was sliced up and sold for parts. This privitization was a disaster for the common worker.