Genuine question. How would a transition to socialism work in practice?
Eating the billionaires and “nationalizing” publicly traded companies is the easy part. Saying “you can still possess your car” is also easy. The hard, and ultimately unpopular, part is everything else in between. Summer cottage? Family farm? What happens to pensions/retirement savings, land ownership, inheritance, small businesses, the apartment your are renting out to pay for your own rent…
Yeah, I know, these things tend to be out of reach for younger folks these days, precisely because of hyper wealth concentration. So with billionaires and mega corps out of the picture, the question still stands.
When socialists say they want to collectivize private property, they use a meaning of private property which equates to “means of production”, or “capital”. The goal is that there won’t be owners of capital earning money simply by employing other people to work the capital and stealing a part of what they produce (surplus value).
In your example, summer cottages and family farms aren’t means of production, so there’s no reason to redistribute them. Pensions and retirement were guaranteed to everyone even in the USSR, where women retired at 55 and men at 60, so I can guarantee socialists want you to have a pension. Small businesses that employ other employees would have to be collectivized eventually, which could mean that the owner simply becomes one normal worker in the business, working alongside the previous employees instead of above them. Regarding the apartment, you don’t need to rent out an apartment if the rent of your apartment costs 3-5% of your income (as was the case in the Soviet Union). Land ownership and inheritance are a bit grey. Obviously nobody wants to collectivize your nana’s wedding dress, or your dad’s funko pop collection. Obviously we would want to collectivize if you inherit a big factory, or 20 flats that your mom rented out. For things in the middle, it becomes a bit more grey, so there’s no easy answer. I bet everyone would agree that uprooting people isn’t generally a good thing.
Summer cottage? Family farm?
One fairly straightforward plan is the nationalization of housing. If you own and occupy your primary residence, you may stay. If you have a secondary residence, you can keep it as a vacation home. If you own more than that, they’re going to go to the state. Pick two. If you’re a renter, and you occupy that place, it’s now yours. Anytime someone is moving, the government has the right to first refusal, which it will always utilize. Effectively, the governments buys the house back each time, and then sells it again to someone new. If you die your home can go to a family member/designated person. No one may more than 2 homes, no one may sell a home to another individual directly, though the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government. All rents/mortgages are income based, and payments end after 5 years.
Cuba has done this fairly successfully. Yugoslavia had a similar system. No, it’s not the best system imaginable, nor is it super popular with the
fucking leechesowner class, but it’s viable, doable, and simple enough to set up while insuring that all people may be homed.the government has the right to first refusal
the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government
And time and time again this has lead to people in the government abusing this power and assuring for themselves and their families a completely different standard of living than the rest of the population. I’ve lived in a socialist country and the end was not pretty.
It sounds great on paper and has proven great on small scales (with the option to leave the community if you want), but on larger scales human nature always messes things up.
Sure, so let’s try nothing, because the current system works so well. I mean, what with us having solved homelessness, having equality, and fixing the climate, I can’t imagine why we should do something different.
I understand that you’ve had a bad experience, and I also understand that the real world examples of nation states claiming to be socialist have been less than ideal, but, as a species, we have to decide what is more important, because we’re running out of time. I’m not a Soviet fan boy or a tankie, I’m an anti authoritarian, libertarian socialist. But it’s a bit like the US election right now. I don’t like Kamala, but I’ll take her over Trump, and continue to work outside of that to achieve my actual goals. I don’t like state socialism, but it’s better than what we’ve got. If the biggest problem with socialist states has been corruption in the upper echelons of power, then that is excellent real world data to draw from when we considering alternatives to both our current system and the experiments of the past. Strict transparency, more citizen involvement, less concentration of power. Sure, again, not my ideal system, but it’s something better. We have examples to draw from, both in failures and successes. Yugoslavia had a lot more personal freedoms than the USSR, and a strong focus on worker cooperatives. Cuba has managed to create one of the best healthcare systems in the world with shoestrings and belt buckles. The USSR gives us an example of just how quickly progress can be made in areas like industrialization, crucial information that could help us in the transition to renewable energy. The US and Western Europe have created citizenry that are unwilling to accept, at least in theory, authoritarian, iron-fist control. We absolutely can create something that blends these philosophies, but it is imperative that it’s focus be on the creation of an egalitarian society that works towards ending tyranny, which includes the tyranny of workers, and seeks to solve the climate crises. We do not have a choice if we want to survive the next few decades.
Sure, so let’s try nothing, because the current system works so well.
Not where I was going with it. There are definitely a lot of things that should be done, especially in the US, which I wouldn’t even call socialist, just common sense (like universal healthcare). But you can’t tell people “you’re not all equal” and suddenly they all believe it. That’s why most socialist countries were also authoritarian. Maybe over many generations of progressive change things can go differently.
Most socialist states have been authoritarian because most of them of were authoritarian before their socialist movements. They are a product of their own cultures. In addition, most are authoritarian because they’re attempting to recreate the successes of the Soviet revolution, and using their system as a baseline.
Also, my first paragraph in that comment was aggressive and I apologize for that. I should have come better than that. But the fact remains, socialism is not the problem. Authoritarianism is. They’re not one and the same, nor is one required for the other.
Human nature? Which part of human nature? Humans are multifaceted. Also, there has never been an example of socialism in practice, even moderate social democracy that secured domestic mineral and oil resources for its own people, that hasn’t come under direct attack, invasion, embargo, sanction, etc., by western capitalist powers. It usually isn’t human nature messing things up, its direct capitalist imperialist intervention.
Also what model of human nature are you using? I prefer the dialectical construction of Benedict Spinoza in his book Ethics, have you ever considered what you mean by it or where you picked it up from? I see a lot of hand waving about human nature from people, but no description of what it actually is. How do you know you aren’t using a flawed concept in your determination?
This is also the way it works in Singapore, where you essentially lease an abode for life
Do you have personal experience with it there? If so, how do you like it?
The way I heard it explained that made the most sense is personal vs private property. If it’s something a person uses regularly. Personal property. Otherwise public property that can be leased short term for production and business use. But never owned by a large parasitic business/corporation that will horde resources and foul the land with no concern for others.
It works by encouraging union and co-ops, actually punishing companies that break laws, and providing social safety nets. Basically everything this comic points out.
So by “encouraging”, I take that to mean a mixed system? I’m all for the Nordic model. I think a hard-line approach is ultimately too disruptive and unpalatable to a majority of people’s current personal situation, and I feel like it’s important to communicate that for buy in.
What is unpalatable to the people current personal situation tho? The problem is you are already seeing it from a capitalist point of view where you think most people have something to lose.
First, your second house or small business are not means of production.
Second, most people dont have a summer cottage, most people dont have a family farm, most people dont have land ownership, most people dont inherit shit, most people dont have apartments they are renting, most people dont have small business.
Most people have nothing to lose and everything to gain when we talk about people owning their workplace. If you think otherwise you are overstating what most people own, which is close to nothing. What most people think of is the idea that if they work hard enough they will someday have that apartment to rent, that summer house, that big money their sons will inherit, which for most of earth’s population is just bullshit.
I’m all for the Nordic model
The sad thing about the Nordic model is that it relies on wealth and labour extraction from poorer countries as much as the rest of capitalist countries do. Being on the upper side of unequal exchange (I beg you to read on unequal exchange, even if only the Wikipedia article), makes it very nice for some lucky few in Europe / North America, and very hard for the rest who aren’t on the upper side.
A mixed system which starts with changing the most socially egregious examples is probably the only politically viable transition; lots of people fear disruption, and it takes time and proving to them that the changes are beneficial.
I’d suggest beginning with something like Corbyn’s Labor had proposed; if a capitalist business is sold or fails, the workers are given first right of refusal and a govt loan is given for them to purchase as a worker cooperative.
Give it a few generations.
I’m not a socialist, but what I advocate for is explicitly postcapitalist.
Some postcapitalist policies include
- All firms are mandated to be worker coops similar to how local governments are mandated to be democratic
- Land and natural resources are collectivized with a 100% land value tax and various sorts of emission taxes etc
- Voluntary democratic collectives that manage collectivized means of production and provide start up funds to worker coops
- UBII’m not a socialist
All firms are mandated to be worker coops
Pretty sure that qualifies as socialism for most people. Welcome onboard, my friend!
Some people think so. That doesn’t make it a good academic definition. You get into the shitty definition of socialism that Dr. Wolff mocks:
“When the government that’s a lot of stuff, that’s socialism. And the more stuff it does, the more socialist it gets. And when it does a reeeeeal whole lot of stuff, then that’s communism”
The academic definition would be the systems of the historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production
How do you define socialism?
Rhetorically, it doesn’t matter how I define the term. It matters how people use it.
The way I would define it is either the systems of historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production
True, it does not matter for your point. I was just interested. Thanks for your answer.
Wealth tax and taxing inheritance. You know it works because the capitalists flee the fucking country as soon as you inplement it (or rather before, when they buy information from a corrupt official or legally from a politician).
So then how is that supposed to work? Tax something that can walk across the border tomorrow?
The capitalists subverting liberal democracies like this is precisely one of the reasons we call them dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Fortunately, since absolute democratic control should be held by the people, we can just seize their assets for the public through exit taxes, but they will find ways around these as well, so preferrably retroactively.
Now, this would surely tank foreign investment capital in our countries and people might say that is going to “ruin the economy”. However, national control over resources is a necessary step in combatting global economic imperialism, and even though Western economies would suffer somewhat, it is precisely because they are on the top of the food chain of exploitation and frankly deserve to.
The majority of people should see a rise in material conditions and in freedom, as this makes them free to own their means of production and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
The small business part of the transition is “easy” (or at least, not any harder than maintaining a capitalist business), people have been and are currently doing this already. They are known as worker-owned cooperatives, and are often extremely liberating to those who make the effort. Depending on the industry (and the government you live under), it’s not even that difficult, roughly on the order of forming a freelancing agency. There are also entire organizations dedicated to assisting with corporate transition to cooperative structure.
Here are some good examples of resources in the US to start learning that process:
Genuine question. How would a transition to socialism work in practice?
Generally, Leftists believe it can only happen via revolution. The general idea is to organize and build dual power, so that when an inevitable revolution arises, the working class is already organized and can replace the former state.
Eating the billionaires and “nationalizing” publicly traded companies is the easy part. Saying “you can still possess your car” is also easy. The hard, and ultimately unpopular, part is everything else in between. Summer cottage? Family farm? What happens to pensions/retirement savings, land ownership, inheritance, small businesses, the apartment your are renting out to pay for your own rent…
You’re working off the mindset of maintaining Capitalism and piece-by-piece Socializing it, which is not what Leftists generally propose.
I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you’re genuinely interested.
Generally, Leftists believe it can only happen via revolution.
I’m an outsider and I don’t really know much about Leftist thought. I’m curious what the general belief among Lefists is for why this revolution hasn’t happened? (In the capitalist West that is?)
Marxists believe it is due to Imperialism, also known as Unequal Exchange. Western Capitalist countries export the vast bulk of their poverty to foreign countries with cheaper labor to make a wider proportion of profit, similar to the idea of countries functioning as Bourgeoisie and Proletarian.
Whether you agree with Lenin’s analysis of the State and Revolutionary methods, I have yet to find a Leftist that disagrees with his arguments in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
What we are seeing is an increase in Anti-Western sentiment among the Global South, as conditions deteriorate and expropriation increases. As this revolutionary pressure builds, the weakest links pop, so to speak, weakening Western Hegemony and driving their own Proletariat closer to revolution.
Marxists believe it is due to Imperialism
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “imperialism” here but regardless, what is the solution to imperialism according to Marxists?
I elaborated on it later, it’s the concept of exporting the bulk of industrial production to foreign countries to super-exploit for super-profits.
Imperialism defeats itself in much the same way Capitalism does, it increases in severity and exploitation until a boiling point is reached, and the country in the Global South moves towards domestic production and nationalization of their resources and products, rather than serving as an outsourced factory for wealthy Capitalists abroad.
I don’t think we’re communicating. I asked what Marxists’ solution to imperialism is. I can’t see any solution in what you’ve written here.
What do you specifically mean? I just said Imperialism defeats itself, and people in the Global South can act against it by protecting their own production and resources.
How would a transition to socialism work in practice?
Decade by decade, have more things be run by the government rather than for-profit enterprises.
For example, in the 2020s, the US could transition to a Swiss-style healthcare system. In that kind of system, everybody would have insurance provided by a private company, but the most basic plan would be very cheap and offered by every company, and there were subsidies available so nobody in the country was uninsured, no matter what their financial situation. The US could also have a government owned bank that operated out of every post office that provided extremely basic banking services with zero fees. Private banks would still be able to compete with that, but they’d have to compete on extra services that the government bank didn’t offer.
In the 2030s you could tackle education and housing. All state-owned universities could offer education with a $0 tuition and all textbooks available digitally for free. Maybe for some majors you’d have to agree to provide some public service to offset the cost of that education. Like, a doctor might have to agree to serve for 5 years in a remote area that typically doesn’t have good medical coverage. Or, a lawyer might have to spend 5 years working as a public defender. For housing, the government could buy and own housing. Any citizen could get an apartment and pay a low monthly rent directly to the government. Subsidize that rent so that if someone couldn’t afford to pay any rent, they could still live there. Private homes could still exist, and would be more spacious and more luxurious, but everybody would at least be able to start with something decent.
Then you could tackle transportation. Tax private vehicles and use that to fund public transit. As transit got better, fewer and fewer people would feel the need for the luxury of their own vehicle, but those who did could continue to subsidize public transit for the rest (instead of the current situation where cities subsidize drivers).
Then you could look into food. Maybe everyone gets the equivalent of food stamps. Maybe instead of throwing money at private farmers to grow corn, making corn so cheap that it’s almost free, resulting in awful things like high fructose corn syrup in everything, the government could be responsible for some basic crops, and allow private farmers to grow specialty things / luxuries.
Media would be easy – just set up something like the BBC but for the US. Most other countries in the world have something similar.
Bit by bit, just chip away at all the for-profit things and allow the government to either take it over entirely, or to provide a bare-bones version that was available to everybody, while allowing people to keep running their own private for-profit ones that offer a more luxurious experience for people who want to pay more.
have more things be run by the government rather than for-profit enterprises
Who has these things happen and how?
deleted by creator
I’m not a proponent of socialism due to the whole ‘state’ aspect, but I’d say universal healthcare and unconditional UBI would be the actual first steps toward the moneyless and stateless goal put forth in this comic.
“But what if one day I get generational wealth? I better vote against anything that might reduce poverty and wealth inequality!” - republican voters
Removed by mod
Yeah, what the fuck is it with glorifying USSR in those posts? Five year plan my fucking ass, the whole eastern block was a shithole with no human rights, no liberty and borderline poverty. The progress it made for humanity was negative and we all would be better if lenin and stalin died at birth. Nothing good ever came out of russia and even their socialist revolution turned into oppressing everyone who isn’t at the top very quick.
If you want to advertise socialism maybe don’t point to the worst implementation of it.
Removed by mod
The 5 year plans were part of what made it so bad, too.
I’m not saying completely free markets are the solution, but a totally planned economy is set to fail because it’s impossible to plan for everything.
a totally planned economy is set to fail because it’s impossible to plan for everything.
What do you mean? Can you provide an example, and how Capitalism can better account for it?
Unregulated capitalism isn’t any better, but for an example, there was mass starvation in the USSR doing some 5 year plans.
Ultimately you can’t account for every factor - humans, weather, etc. Markets are more efficient than planning in some aspects, but you can’t allow rent seeking capitalists to exploit everyone either. Nationalize everything truly important and what’s allowed to exist as private enterprise, should be heavily regulated.
Unregulated capitalism isn’t any better, but for an example, there was mass starvation in the USSR doing some 5 year plans.
Famine was regular in Tsarist Russia, once farming was collectivized and industrialized famine ended.
Ultimately you can’t account for every factor - humans, weather, etc. Markets are more efficient than planning in some aspects, but you can’t allow rent seeking capitalists to exploit everyone either. Nationalize everything truly important and what’s allowed to exist as private enterprise, should be heavily regulated.
None of that is specific, all of that is vibes.
Hey now, if the people over at lemmy.ml could read they’d be very upset!
Lenin was the first person to kickstart the first functional socialist society; regardless of how you look at his policies, he is an obvious choice and an important man in history.
Also, Lenin did not commit genocide.
Lenin was the man who presided over the suppression and destruction of existing worker power and socialist modes of production.
All he did was create a centralised state capitalism and perpetuated existing class conflict, with his party taking the role of the bourgeoisie.
Lenin was the man who presided over the creation and support of new worker power and socialist modes of production.
All he did was create a centralised state capitalism and perpetuated existing class conflict, with his party taking the role of the bourgeoisie.
What separates any form of Marxism from “state capitalism,” in your eyes? Marx was an advocate for central planning.
Secondly, please describe how the CPSU competed against each other in Markets for the purpose of Capital accumulation into their own pockets, and explain why wealth disparity greatly decreased during the USSR and increased after it’s dissolution.
The USSR had numerous struggles and issues, both external and internal, but it was Socialist. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the successes and failures of the USSR, and its place in Socialist history.
What sepparates any form of Marxism from “state capitalism,” in your eyes? Marx was an advocate for central planning.
Marx was also an advocate of worker ownership of the MoP, not state ownership.
The state owning and using force to control the MoP just recreates capitalist class dynamics.
I am not a fan of central planning personally, but you can have a centrally planned economy that is not state capitalist, as long as the planning committees are actually made up of workers and delegates chosen by the workers.
Immediately after the revolution, the existing workers and factory councils were either destroyed or coopted by the party.
Secondly, please describe how the CPSU competed against each other in Markets for the purpose of Capital accumulation into their own pockets, and explain why wealth disparity greatly decreased during the USSR and increased after it’s dissolution.
I have honestly no idea what strawman you are trying to beat up here.
I never said anything about internal competition, I was talking about state capitalism as a system that perpetuates capitalist class structure with the state and agents of the state replacing the bourgeoisie.
Marx was also an advocate of worker ownership of the MoP, not state ownership.
Marx’s State specifically referred to the elements of government that enforce class dynamics, like Private Property Rights. Marx was fully in favor of government, just not the State.
The state owning and using force to control the MoP just recreates capitalist class dynamics.
In what manner? If you eliminate market competition, Capital accumulation, and the necessity for profit, then you have fundamentally moved beyond Capitalism. The CPSU did not compete against each other and pocket vast amounts of profits, and the Soviets were run democratically. It’s fundamentally and entirely different.
I am not a fan of central planning personally, but you can have a centrally planned economy that is not state capitalist, as long as the planning committees are actually made up of workers and delegates chosen by the workers.
So then the USSR was Socialist, after all. The Soviet Union was based on Soviet Democracy, worker councils with elected delegates. There was corruption, and there were inner-power conflicts, but the structure overall was Socialist.
Immediately after the revolution, the existing workers and factory councils were either destroyed or coopted by the party.
The Soviets never went away.
I have honestly no idea what strawman you are trying to beat up here.
I never said anything about internal competition, I was talking about state capitalism as a system that perpetuates capitalist class structure with the state and agents of the state replacing the bourgeoisie.
There’s no strawman here, you claimed that the agents of the state functioned as the bourgeoisie, and I asked how they replicated the functions of the bourgeoise, the necessary components of which include competition and production for individual profit. The lack of those means it cannot be considered Capitalist.
I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, it might help you get a clearer understanding of the transition to Communism in Marx’s own words.
Additionally, I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the successes and failures of the USSR, and its place in Socialist history.
Marx’s State specifically referred to the elements of government that enforce class dynamics, like Private Property Rights. Marx was fully in favor of government, just not the State.
You’re shadowboxxing again, I never mentioned the state/government distinction.
Completely pointless either way since the USSR was not state abolitionist.
In what manner? If you eliminate market competition, Capital accumulation, and the necessity for profit, then you have fundamentally moved beyond Capitalism. The CPSU did not compete against each other and pocket vast amounts of profits, and the Soviets were run democratically. It’s fundamentally and entirely different
Because competition isn’t what creates class disparity, the problem is the ownership and control part, which was entirely reserved for members of the party.
Because the party, which was controlled from the top down had complete economic and political control over the system, it essentially just replaced the ruling class of old.
Yes, the competition was mostly removed but the class structure stayed basically the same.
So then the USSR was Socialist, after all. The Soviet Union was based on Soviet Democracy, worker councils with elected delegates. There was corruption, and there were inner-power conflicts, but the structure overall was Socialist.
The Soviets never went away.
But there was no worker control of these institutions, they were entirely controlled from the top down by party officials.
If there were elections they were a sham, basically nothing else than virtue signaling to the values the communist party supposedly had but in practice despised.
There’s no strawman here, you claimed that the agents of the state functioned as the bourgeoisie, and I asked how they replicated the functions of the bourgeoise, the necessary components of which include competition and production for individual profit. The lack of those means it cannot be considered Capitalist.
I don’t need to reply to this for the 759th time.
I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, it might help you get a clearer understanding of the transition to Communism in Marx’s own words
MLs flipping a coin on if they should tell someone to read Critique of the Gotha Programme or On Authority today.
You’re shadowboxxing again, I never mentioned the state/government distinction.
Completely pointless either way since the USSR was not state abolitionist.
What structural aspects of the USSR differed from what Marx advocated for?
Because competition isn’t what creates class disparity, the problem is the ownership and control part, which was entirely reserved for members of the party.
Incorrect. Competition is key to accmulation and production for profit along Capitalist lines. Ownership was done via government, yes, and was participated in by the public. The Party was the group that largely ran the government, but you could join it if you wished.
If there were elections they were a sham, basically nothing else than virtue signaling to the values the communist party supposedly had but in practice despised.
There were elections. I would like justification for your claim that they were a sham.
MLs flipping a coin on if they should tell someone to read Critique of the Gotha Programme or On Authority today.
Marxists suggest reading Marx and Engels, shocker.
No, Lenin was not a genocidal dictator. Additionally, whether you agree with his contributions to Marxism or not, he remains the most influential Marxist of the 20th century, every major Marxist org since Lenin has been influenced by his analysis of Imperialism, the State, and Revolution, whether it be via accepting them, or deliberately rejecting them.
No, Lenin was not a genocidal dictator.
You could dispute the genocidal bit but you cannot in good faith argue that the communist party wasn’t dictatorial.
Additionally, whether you agree with his contributions to Marxism or not, he remains the most influential Marxist of the 20th century, every major Marxist org since Lenin has been influenced by his analysis of Imperialism
And I believe the OPs point is that that’s a bad thing.
We shouldn’t be basing our politics and imagery today off the guy who fucked socialism for a century.
You could dispute the genocidal bit but you cannot in good faith argue that the communist party wasn’t dictatorial.
In what manner was the Communist Party “dictatorial?” It held immense power, yes, but it wasn’t 1 dude deciding everything, there was worker participation in how it ran and the party itself was democratically run. There was corruption, yes, but it wasn’t a dictatorship either.
And I believe the OPs point is that that’s a bad thing.
We shouldn’t be basing our politics and imagery today off the guy who fucked socialism for a century.
How, exactly, did Lenin “fuck socialism for a century?”
In what manner was the Communist Party “dictatorial?” It held immense power, yes, but it wasn’t 1 dude deciding everything,
Ah yes, as long as there is at least 2 dudes deciding everything it’s not a dictatorship.
there was worker participation in how it ran and the party itself was democratically run.
As long as you liked the way that the party wanted things to be, yes.
How, exactly, did Lenin “fuck socialism for a century?”
His party went on to encourage other revolutionary groups to adapt the anti-socialist Leninist-Stalinist structure, at times actively sabotaging socialist movements that were structured differently.
In those times you either fell behind the ML party line or had no support from the international movement, the russian communists absolutely fucked it all up.
Ah yes, as long as there is at least 2 dudes deciding everything it’s not a dictatorship.
There were far more than “2 dudes” in the CPSU, and far, far more than 2 dudes in the USSR that contributed to the electoral process and voted within it.
As long as you liked the way that the party wanted things to be, yes.
Yes, generally, though you could join the party and influence it from within.
His party went on to encourage other revolutionary groups to adapt the anti-socialist Leninist-Stalinist structure, at times actively sabotaging socialist movements that were structured differently.
How was it “anti-socialist?” Where is the departure from Marx in Lenin?
In those times you either fell behind the ML party line or had no support from the international movement, the russian communists absolutely fucked it all up.
What other movements have succeeded at all? Why do you think Marxists generally are made up of MLs?
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the successes and failures of the USSR, and its place in Socialist history.
What other movements have succeeded at all? Why do you think Marxists generally are made up of MLs?
It’s almost like some Mario-mustache-ass pedophile resented other socialist movements for threatening his order.
I am honestly tired, you people all peddle the same nonsense talking points and link the same shitty books and essays.
MLs have not had an independent thought since the early 20th century and it really fucking shows.
You’re flinging mud because you can’t or don’t want to respond. Linking Marx is linking “shitty books and essays?”
Lenin was not a genocidal dictator
He wasn’t, but the fact that his system was so easily taken over by someone who was should be reason enough to distrust ML.
Lenin was a genocidal dictator
Whom did he genocide according to you? And I guess you’re against the worker-councils that made an incredible amount of the decisions in the RSFSR and the early USSR?
Removed by mod
Even Paul Averich, an anarchist who wrote the definitive history of the 1921 Kronstadt uprising and critic of the Bolsheviks, didn’t call Lenin genocidal. Ever heard about the White terror? After the civil war Lenin was sick and by Feb 1924 he would be dead, but go ahead and keep believing in myths. Calling Lenin a genocidal dictator, and hand wringing about the red terror after the Russia fought off civil war and invasions for years after the October revolution, is akin to taking the side of the confederates after the American civil war. Complete ignorance of history, complete acceptance of bourgeois myth.
I’m not uncritical of the USSR or the Bolsheviks and I’m a little skeptical of campists who are; but at least they have usually read reliable history books on the topic and come to a conclusion based on some factual information. You are not dealing with the historical context in which these tragedies occurred.
After the civil war Lenin was sick and by Feb 1924 he would be dead
And the anarchist arrests and killings were happening right after the revolution, and everything that happened with the Black Army of Ukraine also happened well before then.
You talk as if there was only the White Army and then the Red Army standing up to the White Army, but there were plenty of other socialists that Lenin put his imperial boot on.
everything that happened with the Black army of Ukraine happened well before then
To be clear, I have a lot of sympathy for the anarchist perspective. Nestor Makhno was a total badass, and I can understand taking his side.
However, calling Lenin a genocidal imperialist dictator is just plain wrong. Rather than criticize the ghost of the bourgeois myth, I challenge you to criticize what he actually was, what he and the Bolsheviks were up against and reckon with the fact that what they were trying to accomplish was impossible. The rule of the Bolsheviks was orders of magnitude less bloody and tragic than the rule of tsar Nicholas was, and would have been had it been allowed to persist. And the Bolsheviks were the only faction in Russia capable of seizing and holding power at the time of the Revolution. If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks, Makhno would have rotted away in prison and Ukraine would have been crushed even more harshly by the actual imperialists, the Austro-Germans. Bolshevik suppression of anarchists was undoubtedly mishandled, repressive, terrible. I can understand hating the man that led the faction that carried out this repression, but that still does not make him what he was not.
Honestly I think the man you should direct your ire toward, the man who vowed to cleanse Russia of anarchism “with an iron broom,” is the leader of the Red army, Leon Trotsky. And while I’m a fan of much of Trotsky’s writing and his leadership during the 1917 struggle, his treatment of anarchists that followed was despicable. So again, historical context actually matters.
To be clear, I never used the “genocidal” label, but imperialist dictator does apply. You yourself say he led “the faction” that carried out “repression”, admit it was “terrible”, but then in the next breath you act like he had no responsibility.
You also say:
If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks, Makhno would have rotted away in prison
That’s like saying, “if it wasn’t for the people who wanted to kill him and put him in prison, he would be in prison”; followed by:
and Ukraine would have been crushed even more harshly by the actual imperialists
“More” and “actual” don’t really fit here. In the same breath, you admit they were imperialists, but then essentially argue they are not true imperialists because it could have been worse.
Your entire comment is essentially trying to take everything that was bad about the party and their rule and separate it away from Lenin - the leader of the party that was ruling - and act like it was all done by a separate faction existing in a different reality; specifically you try to pin it all on Trotsky, who Lenin wished to appoint as Vice-chairman, and who historians believe Lenin wanted as a successor.
Trotsky didn’t become Lenin’s successor! This was how much control Lenin had actually lost over those years. Stalin was appointing his own people to positions within the government, Lenin and Trotsky knew this. Stalin was even rewriting history to portray him as a hero of the revolution, which he had very little to do with, and even tried to stall. Lenin and Trotsky knew this, they knew he was setting himself up to take power, against Lenin’s supposed wishes. The fact is, the party was in many ways independent of Lenin. He led it but he led it as an intellectual, not a dictator. Even Stalin had limited control over the party, the scariest thing about the Stalinist purges is how much democratic buy in there was for them. but that’s not how we are supposed to think of history. History is actually good guys vs bad guys, with “great men” fully in control of all of these conditions. Which makes us, like you and me, completely inconsequential, just like the capitalist ruling class wants us to believe. Your understanding is so fundamentally flawed you contradict yourself. Your point actually disproves your own premise, which makes me believe that you want a narrative, when you should be seeking truth: messy, incomplete, deeply contradictory truth. “Imperialism” has an actual meaning, stop trying to change it to fit your narrative, it cheapens the word.
Removed by mod
Your black and white false equivocation completely divorced from historical context is the bullshit. At what point have you demonstrated even an elementary knowledge of the circumstances? You can’t just throw out words like Cheka and Black Army as a substitute for historical understanding. Make an actual point based in historic facts. I’m not here to entertain your ignorance, I’m here to provide nuance and context to the bourgeois myths you are determined to repeat. Unlike many communists I am actually critical of the Bolsheviks; but that doesn’t make me a willing stooge for disinformation. I’ve studied, I’ve discussed, I’ve made up my own mind about these things. I’m not wrong for asking a bit more from you than blind disdain, in fact I wish you would ask more from yourself.
I’ve very much heard of the red terror, i.e. the internal response of the Bolsheviks in the RSFSR to the civil war against Tsarism and their allies. It was very restrained in numbers (nothing like the Stalinist terror), can be very well compared to the oppression within republican Spain in the Spanish civil war against fascism, both in scope and in numbers. I wonder why people never criticise the latter… Oh right, because they lost against fascists, and the only acceptable leftist movements in the west, are those that fail, like Spanish Second Republic, Mosaddegh, Salvador Allende…
What you anticommunists can’t stand isn’t the red terror, but the fact that for once, the leftists used the means they needed to use in order to secure a victory against fascism
Removed by mod
Wait, you’re telling me that the people from the 20th century who were on the receiving end of Tsarist oppression, when they got power and saw Tsarism rear its head in a civil war, were at times cruel against Tsarists? Wow, who would have thunk. Very easy recipe for not being tortured by the Cheka for being a fascist: don’t be a fascist.
In places where leftists didn’t oppress the fascists, like Chile under Salvador Allende or Spain during the Spanish Second Republic, the fascists gained control and then did tenfold the torture and murder, not just to their ideological enemies but to entire ethnicities. You don’t fight fascism with flowers and votes, I hope once and for all people will understand this.
This dudes pro Tsar lol
Are you thinking of Stalin?
Removed by mod
Was Stalin the
dictatorelected leader at the time of the betrayal and destruction of the Black Army of Ukraine? Was Stalin the one in power right after the revolution when they started killing and arresting anarchists?Fuck Lenin.
Trotsky was in charge of the red army wrt the suppression of the Makhnovists, so your ire directed at Lenin is misplaced. Even the idea that Lenin had total dictatorial control is a slanderous myth. He was a sheer intellectual force of history, committed to revolution. The Bolsheviks were flawed and contained many bellicose elements such as Stalin; and Lenin was content if not often forced to leave many matters in the hands of Trotsky, Kamanev, Zinoviev and others. If anything, Lenin didn’t have enough control over the Bolsheviks
I already said this in reply to your other comment, but I’ll repeat it here.
Lenin appointed Trotsky as Vice-chairman, and it’s believed Lenin wanted Trotsky as his successor; you can’t just shift all blame from one to another and pretend Lenin lived in a different reality when he was leader of the party.
And I’ll repeat my point here as well, Trotsky didn’t become General Secretary, which disproves the idea that Lenin was an absolute dictator
This is really just a very specific type of socialism, as indicated by Lenin being here; an authoritarian who killed other socialists. This is about ML.
The first and last panels are right, but, for example, according to this post Anarcho-Communists don’t exist. They don’t believe in “evolving to a point” as the third panel says, they believe in jumping straight to that point. Also, Libertarian Socialists wouldn’t really be fond of “elected committees” controlling things, as the second panel talks about; maybe electing people into leadership positions inside of a company/cooperative, or maybe even having unions make those decisions, but nothing above that.
They included a picture of Picard too, should I assume this is ML-utopianism and just shut down listening completely?
Also, I’m an anarchist and don’t believe in “jumping to the point.” We’re not all teenagers with no concept of how societies work. We’re opposed to the State and any form of imposed hierarchy. That I’m opposed to the State today doesn’t mean I don’t vote or that I’m just waiting around for the spirit of Good Anarchism to posses every person on Earth suddenly.
Like any reasonable person with an ideology, I make plans to spread my ideas to more people over time. The capitalist state isnt going to auddenly collapse into anarchy and if it did it woukd be terrible because other parts of the collapsing state are going to form monarchies, fascist authoritarian fortresses, and many other balkanized microstates. It would be the worst possible outcome for anarchists!
No, our goal is to enact socialism. Then to whither away the state apparatus into communism. Then to whither away the global hierarchy in favor of self-determination and negotiation.
In no universe do serious people think: Step 1: destroy all governance. Step 2: ???. Step 3: Anarchist utopia.
Good comment. Whether Marxist or Anarchist, goals must be built towards, and cannot be vibed into existence.
(Said the dude from .ml)
I really don’t mean to be rude, but both you and the other user seem to have no concept of anarchism. I mean, what you said straight up makes no sense. Marxists and AnComms both have the same end goal, so what do you think the difference between them is?
Anarchist societies and groups exists and have existed throughout history; they didn’t have to be “build towards” by taking control of the government first.
And please don’t be telling me why you like or don’t like anarchism; I’m arguing about what it is. Whether you like or think is viable is an entire different conversation.
Marxists and AnComms both have the same end goal, so what do you think the difference between them is?
They do not. AnComms want horizontalism as the end goal, Marxists want central planning and elected councils. Anarchists believe all hierarchy to inherently be an issue, while Marxists don’t, and rely on central planning as a core concept for economic organization. I read both Anarchist and Marxist theory, despite being a Marxist, because Anarchists do make good points from time to time that can be adapted and learned from.
My point here is that Anarchists and Marxists are united against Capitalism and Imperialism, but Anarchists are also against verticality with respect to organization, while Marxists are not, which is the drive in conflict when it does exist between the two groups.
Anarchist societies and groups exists and have existed throughout history; they didn’t have to be “build towards” by taking control of the government first.
Anarchism doesn’t just happen or fall into place. How do you believe the US, for example, will arrange itself into horizontal networks of Mutual Aid? By building them up. You seem to have no concept of Anarchist praxis in the modern era, you can’t vibe Anarchism into being.
And please don’t be telling me why you like or don’t like anarchism; I’m arguing about what it is. Whether you like or think is viable is an entire different conversation.
Absolutely, I don’t intend to engage in dogmatic sectarianism. Anarchists are my comrades against Capitalism and Imperialism, and if an Anarchist movement was spearheading the revolution, I would fall in line and support that mass movement, because only a mass movement can enact change.
They do not.
Marxists are communists, for whom the end goal is a stateless, moneyless, classless, society. What do you think stateless means?
AnComms want horizontalism as the end goal
And as the process. Which is what separates them from other communists.
Anarchism doesn’t just happen or fall into place. How do you believe the US, for example, will arrange itself into horizontal networks of Mutual Aid? By building them up. You seem to have no concept of Anarchist praxis in the modern era, you can’t vibe Anarchism into being.
Building them up through grassroots movements. They don’t happen by taking control of the government and creating “elected committees” who then “plan production”, which is what the comic talks about doing (even adding a picture of Lenin), and which the other user - and you by extension - defended.
Marxists are communists, for whom the end goal is a stateless, moneyless, society. What do you think stateless means?
Good question. Marx specifically referred to the State as the mechanisms within government by which one class asserts its power, not the entire government. Engels elaborates on this, and explains the “whithering away” of the state:
“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ’abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ’a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight.”
This is not the Anarchist definition of the State, best described as a monopoly on violence. For Anarchists, elected councils are examples of vertical hierarchy that ought be opposed, as compared to Marxists who see it as a necessary tool for administration. This is the transformation from “the government of people” to the “administration of things,” ie government and councils and committees exist to fulfill managerial roles, while Anarchists seek full horizontalism and avoid managerial roles as they believe them to lead to corruption and coercion.
Think Star Trek vs. The Disposessed.
And as the process. Which is what separates it from other communists.
Yes, I am familiar with Means/Ends Unity. I may disagree with the importance of it, but I am not here to promote infighting or sectarianism, I am here to explain Marxism.
Building them up through grassroots movements. They don’t happen by taking control of the government and creating “elected committees” who then “plan production”, which is what the comic talks about doing (even adding a picture of Lenin), and which the other user - and you by extension - defended.
Yes, you build up Anarchism, a network of horizontal structures, from the bottom up. You build up Marxism by building dual power via councils, unions, and other democratic structures that can replace the Capialist state. These are separate concepts with similar but distinct goals.
Yes, you build up Anarchism, a network of horizontal structures, from the bottom up. You build up Marxism by building dual power via councils, unions, and other democratic structures that can replace the Capialist state. These are separate concepts with similar but distinct goals.
Right, but so it seems we agree? This post’s explanation of socialism excludes anarchism, among other forms of socialism, which was my criticism. It only focuses on ML, but titles itself “What the heck is Socialism?”
Perhaps I expressed my self wrong at some point, or misinterpreted something, but that’s the point I was trying to make from the start.
(Said the dude from .ml)
I really don’t mean to be rude, but both you and the other user seem to have no concept of anarchism.
Downvotes are likely because of both of these statements. Judge people by their actions, not by where they come from. I’ve seen Cowbee consistently acting civilly and in good faith here and elsewhere, including interactions that I’ve had with him. And that’s in the face of frequent ad hominems, like the thinly veiled one that you put in parentheses.
I don’t see eye-to-eye with him or other M-Ls on a lot of things, especially as I’m roughly an anarcho-syndicalist. But that’s really no reason to be rude. Try some positivity and you might build more bridges.
you and the other user seem to have no concept of anarchism.
This is a bit puzzling as both seem to be describing forms of anarchism. There are a multitude of different variations. Could you perhaps expound a bit on what form of anarchism you are meaning? Can you share any extant anarchic societies that you are aware of that are members of the global community? From my knowledge and experience, anarchic communities without agreed, intentional direction frequently implode either from external pressures (ex. capitalist or M-L military intervention, state actor infiltration) or personality conflicts.
It was just a tongue in cheek comment based on .ml being known for having a lot of tankies, which are not usually very friendly to anarchists; it was not meant as an insult.
As for anarchist societies that are part of the global community, that’s a bit of a Herculean task since no state will ever want to acknowledge a stateless society; but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. For a current one, you can look to the Zapatistas, which I’ve heard about but admittedly don’t know much about; and for other ones, you can look at the anarchists in Catalonia during the civil war, and Korean People’s Association in Manchuria around the same time.
Catalonia was stuck between Franco (supplied by Nazis and Mussolini, even officers) and the Republicans/communist party (supplied by the USSR, even officers), and not only did the Nazis and USSR take plenty of other territories, but before the war the Republicans, which were liberal, had won elections; so it can’t be claimed it failed because they were anarchists (and non-Soviet socialists and communists), especially with how well they did for a while with so few resources.
Manchuria was also caught between Imperial Japan and communist Korea, and finally fell with the Japanese invasion. Japan not only conquered Korea (which was obviously not all anarchist), but also a lot of other territory and killed a lot of other people, so the failure cannot be attributed to anarchism then either.
Good examples and getting at what my point was. External forces (generally capitalist but also the Red Army did its fair share) continually besiege anarchic societies. Without alliances and reaching societal critical mass, anarchic (and other socialist and/or communist) societies are too vulnerable to interference. Rojava (different SDF) has already seen some of this with efforts to undermine their position having already taken place (ex. Trump’s government negotiating some disarmament then abandoning then to Turkish artillery/airstrikes).
It was just a tongue in cheek comment based on .ml being known for having a lot of tankies, which are not usually very friendly to anarchists; it was not meant as an insult.
Lemmy.ml obviously leans heavily Marxist, but I also pick it because it has a lot of federation with other instances. I have another account on another instance if I want to just chill out with Leftists of all stripes, under the same username, so I can pick what I want at the time.
I do want to point out that it is normally Anarchists picking fights with Marxists, not the other way around. This is down to Anarchism generally being seen favorably by Marxists, just disagreeing on the idea that vertical organization must be opposed and that there must be Means/Ends unity. This is because Marxists are Dialectical Materialists.
Anarchists, however, see any amount of vertical organizing as bad in and of itself, so you see lots of anti-Marxism among Anarchists. While Marxists generally see Anarchists as having a noble goal with less realistic chances at success, Anarchists tend to see Marxists as better than Capitalists, but ultimately still advocating for an “oppressive” system. This is where “tankie” and “red-fash” usually comes in, while the absolute harshest slur for Anarchist is “Anarkiddie,” and it’s reserved for new leftistd picking Anarchism because they are disgruntled with their current system, but are also in alignment with the western narrative surrounding Marxism and Marxist movements. It’s condescending, and I don’t do it because it’s sectarian nonsense that reduces Leftist cohesion, but it’s a stark contrast to the way some Anarchists percieve Marxists.
As long as you enter Marxist spaces without attacking Marxism, you’ll likely see no trouble even advocating for Anarchism, but the reverse is rarely true. Some few Anarchists even accuse some Marxists as betraying Marxism, as though Marx were an advocate of Anarchism, which any amount of reading can readily disprove entirely.
I do think reading about a meeting between Lenin and Kropotkin is extremely valuable. In this transcript of the meeting, Kropotkin and Lenin show calm, mutual respect and Kropotkin himself describes his aged heart as warmed by the October Revolution, but tries to advocate for a more cooperative-focused approach, while Lenin takes a more hardline stance in favor of protecting the nascent Socialist society. They leave the meeting in disagreement, but on friendly and respectful terms.
Well, firstly, I think .ml doesn’t just lean heavily Marxist, it leans heavily Marxist-Leninist, which is different; secondly, it specifically has a lot of tankies, which is the specific thing I pointed out. Not sure why you would want to equate yourself with that, being that tankies usually refers to people who defend repressive, imperialist, genocidal, actions of madmen. The origin of the word is to describe British communists who defended the use of tanks against protesters in the Hungarian Revolution, and is also colloquial used to describe people who defend Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Jung Un, and their regimes, and more recently to describe people whose views often are based on just being anti-west, to the point of supported the fascist state of Russia, for example. So again, I’m not sure why you’re equating yourself with that, but just remember you were the one to put on the shoe, I didn’t force it on you.
And I’m sorry, but the idea that it’s usually Anarchist picking fights with others is ludicrous, but it actually is the perspective that I expect from tankies, because for a tankie the idea of “leftist unity” is to fall in line with tankie values, and to kill or imprison anyone who does not fall in line. Marxists and MLs in general far outnumber anarchists in online spaces, and one thing you can often see is tankies and MLs in general bursting into anarchist discussions, and being anything less than civil. I have seen anarchists advocating for anarchism in anarchist communities that were in a ML instance or website, get flooded with comments from MLs. You can even be banned in .ml by just being critical of Russia or China; given that anarchists will always be critical of the state, I don’t really see how you can in good faith claim that “you’ll likely see no trouble even advocating for Anarchism”.
Historically, I find your comment even more revisionist. The USSR not only killed and imprisoned anarchists, but it also refused to support anarchists and other socialists in Catalonia during the revolution, and eventually took control of Catalonia - done by the Spanish Communist Party, which was serving USSR interests and even Russian officers - and began prosecuting them, for no reason other than that they had fought in the POUM against fascists, instead of serving under the communist party. The Korean People’s Association in Manchuria also suffered a lot of attacks at the hands of the Korean communists, who nowadays lead North Korea. And of course, there’s also the Black Army of Ukraine, that merely wished to see itself independent of the USSR; but of course, for MLs the right of self-determination goes out the window when MLs are the ones trying to subjugate you. All of this, is where the term “red-fash” comes from.
I also don’t really remember seeing an anarchist be that critical of Marxists, as I have of MLs, which are different; I’m not sure why you keep trying to merge the two into one, as there are plenty of people who think of themselves as Marxist but not ML, and others who are ML and think Lenin evolved Marxists ideas a lot and that Marxists are essentially living in the past and haven’t read enough theory.
In short: MLs, and tankies specifically, have historically heavily persecuted anarchists and wanted them dead, but asking for people to fall in line or be shot is not fucking “unity”. Not so different from when Liberal politicians ask for left unity by getting leftists to vote for them while making no compromises, but at least they are less likely to take you to a prison camp or shoot you in the head.
I’m really not interested in having a conversation with someone who is interested in sweeping all of this under the rug and pretend that anarchists just get prickly about MLs and tankies purely based on theory, and who wants to equate Marxists, MLs, and tankies as being all the same. I’ve even met MLs who distance themselves from tankies, but you claim to be a Marxist and still choose to run defense for them. Well, that’s your choice, but don’t complain when you get pegged for one, which is definitely how I see you now, and I really don’t have in interest with talking with you anymore after this.
Also, I’m an anarchist and don’t believe in “jumping to the point.
[…]
No, our goal is to enact socialism. Then to whither away the state apparatus into communism. Then to whither away the global hierarchy in favor of self-determination and negotiation.
Then, by definition, you’re a Marxist, you’re literally summarising Marxist theory. Anarchists don’t believe in going through that middle step.
In no universe do serious people think: Step 1: destroy all governance. Step 2: ???. Step 3: Anarchist utopia.
If you want to see how an anarchist revolution works, go look up Catalonia and the CNT-FAI, Anarchist Ukraine or the Zapatistas.
Then it sounds like you’re not really an anarchist, much less AnComm 🤷
Care to explain what the difference between a communist and an anarcho-communist is, then? Communists, such as ML, are the ones who believe in slowly eroding the state, anarchists believe in side stepping the state and growing from grassroots movements. That’s sort of, ya know, the entire difference?
Anarchist groups exist and have existed through history, and they don’t typically believe in “destroy all governance”, they believe in, like I said, growing from alternative, independent, grassroots movements.
Sounds like you are just a communist, which is fine, but you’re not an anarchist.
ML would be about a vanguard party. That kind of elected council with central planning can happen without it. That vanguard party is where ML goes all wrong and tends to devolve into cult-like behavior. Edit: and not just the big one’s in Russia/China/N. Korea. Lots of smaller ML groups devolve into cult-like behavior, too.
I do agree, though, that the second panel is still too specific. There are many ways to organize the workers, and that second panel is far too narrow.
It is very clear that it’s about Socialism, so leaving AnComms out is fair.
AnComms are socialists, though. As are communists, and all anarchists who are not AnCaps, but those aren’t even really anarchists.
Socialism is just about workers controlling the means of production; how you get there, the styles and forms of leadership, and all other things, are where all subgroups differ. The same way that in capitalism you can have Soc-Dems, Liberals, Libertarian Capitalists, Fascists, etc.
AnComms are under the socialist umbrella, but the comic isn’t delving into every single thing that’s under that umbrella, because it’s not 600 pages long.
Right, instead is it’s delving specifically into ML and making it sound like that is specifically what socialism is; it’s not. And it sounds like you agree, so… I really don’t get what your point is. Sounds like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.
Vanguard politics consistently lead to a new different hierarchy that is just as bad as the current hierarchy is my problem. Leninism just sucks. The peers who said he sucked were right. Leninism leads to Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, etc. When people try to scare the shit out of us by acting like socialism is more dangerous than capitalism we have Lenin to blame for thinking anyone could have the strength to wield power without being depraved by it.
Hierarchical societies just don’t work. And I won’t apologize for saying Bolshevism sucks and isn’t even really communism, its just a more weirdly shaped version of colonialism
This is the conclusion I’ve come to since reading the State and Revolution. The people who are capable of overthrowing the current system aren’t likely to be the same people capable of keeping true to an approach that’s legitimately socialist. There are problems with reformism as well, as it can result in an endless series of small concessions to distract from an equally endless series of measured power grabs.
If I take what I read of Marx and Engels as likely to be accurately predictive, my conclusion has to be that the circumstances they’re discussing haven’t occurred yet. Basically, Lenin jumped the gun with his support of imposing a revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat. The power structure it creates is too centralized to achieve its goals.
This would suggest to me that if Marx and Engels are correct, a spontaneous and universal proletariat uprising is probably still down the road somewhere. Basically, we see hints at this state reflected in the microcosm of revolution, but have yet to see the circumstances that cause an actual change of prioritization and autonomy rather than simply a changing of the guard.
Lenin wasn’t a socialist. He was a transparently dishonest fraud who built a cult of personality. The best thing you can say is that he failed because if the results were a success, Lenin was a monster.
While Lenin was a flawed leader, and did some shady shit in the name of revolution, I don’t think it’s fair or honest to call him a fraud. Man was literally imprisoned because of his beliefs. Not saying we should follow him religiously like some people do, he definitely made mistakes. Now if this was Stalin we were talking about I could understand.
He was imprisoned for what he wrote about. His actions tell me that he was not a socialist, and that’s what matters. He held an election, immediately enacted violence to change the outcome, immediately dismantled the socialist power structures that were in place, purged people who didn’t agree with him, and acted as an autocrat.
Anyone who thinks Lenin was a socialist is ignorant of history.
Edit: I can’t actually see who replied to me because I blocked them 😂 tells me what I need to know about the people arguing with me.
immediately dismantled the socialist power structures that were in place
That’s insanely ahistorical. The socialist power structures that were in place, existed precisely BECAUSE of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. And soviets had a very high degree of government control all the way up until the death of Lenin. You’re seriously mistaken about this
Showing to us all you haven’t studied the figure of Lenin in an honest way in your life.
Lenin dedicated most of his life (in exile from the tsarist regime for doing so) to study, write on, and agitate against, the issues of the masses. He was openly against becoming a personality cult, he maintained his democratic ideals until the moment a civil war broke and terrorist attacks started to kill members of the party and attempted to kill him, and if you read any of his writings it’s patently obvious that he’s obsessed with the well-being of the working class.
any of his writings
Both Napoleon and Hitler
wrotehad other people write of them that they had the best intentions for true respective populaces. However in practice it turned out they used them as cannon fodder.Hitler had famous writings detailing his ragingly racist and antisemitic views, and committed holocaust against specific ethnicities and nationalities out of Aryan-supremacism.
Napoleon was a militarist nationalist whose life was purely a militarist endeavour. He pursued violent expansionism out of patriotic fervor.
Comparing Lenin, a lawyer who escaped the autocratic regime of his homeland and spent a life in exile examining Marxist texts on how to improve the life conditions of people, to either Napoleon or Hitler, shows you have absolutely no idea of the values Lenin valued and promoted, you haven’t read one single of his texts, and you’re speaking purely out of anti-communist sentiment that’s been ingrained in your brain.
I’m not comparing their politics, but making the point that the self proclaimed ideologies of leaders may be embellished or different from the practice.
Saying that Lenin in theory had the week being of people in mind is rather moot if I’m practice he didn’t give many shits about the people and only tried clinging to power regardless of the suffering his people went through.
And now you’re proving you don’t know anything of the history of the russian revolution. The only event you can point of “authoritarianism” during the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s life, is the red terror. By any reasonably account, the red terror was very measured and not arbitrarily applied, and it happened in the context of a civil war against monarchists in which 14 nations including England, France, and Italy, sent troops and agitators to the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics, with numbers comparable to that of the oppression by the republicans towards fascists in the Spanish civil war.
Do you know why you’ve never heard (unless you’re Spanish) condemnation of the repression against fascists during the Spanish civil war? Because the reds lost. The only good leftist for you anticommunists is the leftist who dies to fascism, like Salvador Allende. As soon as a communist revolution triumphs, you declare it a perversion and oppressive regardless of the history.
I know of the Spanish Civil War, I studied history. I’d even identify as leftist. I’m only staunchly anti-authorithorian. Hence me opposing Franco in the Spanish revolution. Just like another person whom you might hate a Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell).
I mean I respect Stalin as a theoretician, but actions speak louder than theory. And like my main point; people’s own writings are only maybe proof of intention, but practice shows the commitment to those and most autocrats tend to be quite loose with them.
Now moving the goalposts to Stalin. The great terror was unnecessary, harmful, excessively cruel and unjustified, and overall a disaster that should never have happened.
I know of the Spanish Civil War, I studied history. I’d even identify as leftist. I’m only staunchly anti-authorithorian. Hence me opposing Franco in the Spanish revolution.
Ok, now, why did Franco win the war? What if the republicans, instead of “ohhh evil Franco! We got you! Don’t try to plot a coup again, ok? Please!”, they had actually organized before the coup and repressed the fascists that needed repressing? What if Salvador Allende instead of being just the best democrat, had imprisoned or murdered the fascist opposition? What if we could have avoided decades of fascism as the USSR managed to do? Assuming you support the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, do you realize that you’re only supporting the leftists that lose, and that as soon as leftists take control, you categorize it as authoritarian?
That’s not how he was described by anyone who was alive at the time except for business men who lost their investments in tsarist Russia, but keep believing in spooky ghost stories.
To the people downvoting this: please ask yourselves whether you’ve read anything Lenin wrote, or read any non-anticommunist article or book on the Russian Revolution and Lenin
Tankie Detected.
What are you? A Trotskyist? A Liberal?
A NATO-Anarchist, anti-Marxist, at least from what I gathered before they blocked me for defending Marx. Someone who stans Western Hegemony and constantly decries Marxists.
Even Trotskyists like Lenin.
Wow, you think those are the only options?
Tankie Detected.
It was a serious question, but it seems you are unable to abstain from childish retorts.
Not a tankie btw, not even a communist of any tendency
I don’t belive you; I think you’re a liar, because you didn’t ask a neutral question; you gave notoriously terrible options.
Too cowardly to be upfront about your own politics huh? Doesn’t matter, you’ve already been identified as a liberal by someone you blocked for defending Marxism.
The 1% cry about it way less than the 40+% of absolute troglodytes in this country who think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires and love their tacky prophet Donnie the douche
This cartoon makes some bad assumptions.
“the workers (aka the proletariat) own their own workplace” That’s one way to do it, or you could have that happen indirectly where the workplace is owned by the government and the workers “own” it indirectly. Most firefighters don’t work for a for-profit company, but it’s also not a firefighter-owned company that goes and sells firefighting services to businesses that don’t want to burn down. A worker-owned company might make sense in certain situations, say a clothing store. You wouldn’t necessarily want a central government owning all garment manufacturing and sales. A worker-owned collective is probably a better match. You might have a worker-owned sports store that focuses on selling sports gear, and a worker-owned wedding gown store that focuses on that market. Most people are more familiar with the government-owned model, and that’s also socialism.
“production is then planned by elected committees”… why? That’s the communist way, but that’s not necessarily how a socialist system has to operate. And, in many cases, an “elected committee” is absolutely the wrong way. In countries with state-provided healthcare, there’s a government minister who is in charge of health, and their ministry hires the experts needed to run the healthcare system. I definitely don’t think that system would be improved if an elected committee were in charge of running things. You might still have worker-representation in those setups. For example, the nurses could belong to a union, and a union rep would be part of decision making. But, an elected committee is a weird fit in many situations.
“increases in productivity continuously reduce the work week”… that’s just not likely. People who have high paying jobs could sometimes demand a shorter work week, and occasionally they do. But, often they want a more luxurious life in their time off rather than a less luxurious life and lots of time off. I’m not talking about CEOs and other people who are workaholics and own multiple mansions. I’m talking about dentists and engineers who are willing to keep working a standard 40 hour week so that they can take trips around the world, or buy a nice cottage near a lake, or treat their kids to nice presents.
This way of presenting socialism is going to give people the wrong idea.
In countries with state-provided healthcare, there’s a government minister who is in charge of health, and their ministry hires the experts needed to run the healthcare system. I definitely don’t think that system would be improved if an elected committee were in charge of running things
Maybe not running things, but the input of local committees could be very welcome. Increasing the number of specialists of some kind because of popular desire, putting a clinic in X part of the neighborhood because there are a lot of reduced-mobility people who could benefit from it nearby, transparency meetings where the expenditure is explained to the people…
“increases in productivity continuously reduce the work week”… that’s just not likely. People who have high paying jobs could sometimes demand a shorter work week, and occasionally they do. But, often they want a more luxurious life in their time off rather than a less luxurious life and lots of time off
Ideally, each worker would be able to decide what they want, and shift between different working hours on different stages of life. Construction worker who only wants to have the basics and a lot of leisure time? 20h workweek. Scientist crazy for research who wants to spend a lot of time in the lab? 40h workweek. Said scientist decides to have a kid and wants to reduce to 25h workweek? Done.
The idea is that workers would be able to make those decisions themselves instead of relying on the good-will of their corporate overlords, it doesn’t mean everybody has to be present in every democratic decision if they don’t want to, or that everyone needs to have identical working conditions.
Market socialism also exists, just to remind everyone.
If you Google “define socialism”, you’ll get a sentence saying socialism is when tve means of production are owned OR regulated by the people.
So you can still have what we have right now, no need for any sort of fundamental change, except proper regulation, meaning actually good labour laws and proper taxation for the wealthy.
Finland and other Nordics are arguably market socialist.
And yes, I know how many will disagree. Here in Finland, less so.
Finland and other Nordics are arguably market socialist.
Absolutely not, they are Social Democracies. They are not progressing towards more worker ownership, but less, Capitalism still drives the system and the bourgeoisie still drives the state.
By any reasonable dictionary (as well as classic definition), capitalism is defined by private property of the means of production. Socialism is defined by common/social ownership of the means of production, not “regulation”. What you call “market socialism” is just regulated capitalism.
Nothing wrong with having any position, and we should strive for what’s best instead of trying to correspond to certain terms, but what you suggest is not socialism.
And I kinda hate it when we move the goalposts, especially with American politician calling literally any bit of social policy “socialism”. No it’s not, and classics have outlined it very, very clearly.
No it isn’t.
Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly on privately owned businesses.
“By any reasonable definition” you seem to mean “this is what I think for some reason I’m not even entirely sure of, and I’m too lazy to even Google what you said”.
Now see, which should I believe, the actual consensus of the literature on economics and political philosophy… or some random dude online who’s rhetoric of “byaah no no that’s just capitalism socialism is communism” I’ve seen literally thousands of times?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership
However, the articulation of models of market socialism where factor markets are utilized for allocating capital goods between socially owned enterprises broadened the definition to include autonomous entities within a market economy.
Cooperatives, while not being owned by a single private person, are still held by private people.
You can cry all you want but capitalism isn’t synonymous with market economy.
Well regulated capitalism is just socialism. Capitalism strives for the least regulation possible, because it enables maximising profits, which actually is the definition of it as a political ideology. Striving for more capital.
Here’s something which will rustle your jimmies even more.
You know we Nordics are social democracies right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]
Social democracy has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism.[11][12]
In the 21st century, it has become commonplace to define social democracy in reference to Northern and Western European countries,[39] and their model of a welfare state with a corporatist system of collective bargaining.[40] Social democracy has also been used synonymously with the Nordic model.[
You seem to cite Wikipedia as your favorite source. How about opening articles on capitalism and socialism before you go any further?
This should help you get up to speed before you accuse me and all others of making stuff up.
Wikipedia has sources, as you well know.
You’re not making a point. I did. I quoted specific parts of specific articles, backed by verifiable sources.
You can’t fight it, because you’re just a kid pretending to understand the thing you couldn’t even be bothered to Google before opening your ignorant mouth about it, and now you feel shame when someone shows you how wrong you were, by quoting specific parts which specific claims, again, backed by credible sources.
Your reply “no but uh it’s like Wikipedia so it’s like bad and look here’s the article to capitalism. What? No I’m not gonna make an argument, I’m feeling ashamed and I’m gonna pretend saying CAPITALISM really loud will win tve argument”
Yeah, like I said, I’ve seen that literally thousands of times.
Generations of socialists have been critical of social democracy. Generations of capitalists have been saying that social democracy is the closest we will ever get to socialism. So who should I believe, the western consensus of capitalist academia, beholden to big money donors for research grants, or the most brilliant, brave and capable intellectuals of the past 200 years, such as Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, DuBois, Lenin and (for a bit of Nordic flair) Pannekoek?
Because what is the Nordic model really? A huge part of the Nordic economy is defense contractors, which means your social democracy is paid for with mass death, imperialism and immiseration. Also, as a member of the western hegemon, Nordic countries enjoy the fruits of neocolonial exploitation of Africa, Asia, South America, etc., not very socialistic to prop up a class of war mongering rich, even if they pay marginally higher taxes than elsewhere.
This debate has existed for a long time, but to socialists it is settled. The Wikipedia entry for the Gotha program of 1875 calls it “explicitly socialist.” And even by today’s standards, it was and would be fairly progressive; calling for workers rights, universal sufferage, etc., but to many of the members of the first socialist international it was controversial because it relied on an upper class of politicians and business men to administer the social reforms. Karl Marx wrote his “Critique of the Gotha Program” tearing apart every point of the short document as another form of class rule, and even created some problems for his socially a connected partner Friedrich Engels by calling Ferdinand Lasalle, a popular reformer, politician and architect of the Gotha program, “a petty dictator in waiting.” He could not have known that Lasalle was in fact conspiring with von Bismarck to enact a plan of social democracy that would serve as a cover for a new regime of class domination that would undercut the socialist movement with moderate reforms, while making the working class beholden to the political/economic upper class.
These reforms can be taken away over time, which we are seeing in European social democracies over the last 40 years; leaving only the naked coercive competitive drive of capitalism to govern all social relations.
And like, I’m an American, my country is the imperial epicenter for neocolonialism imperialist expansion, bourgeois decadence, exploitation and immiseration (for now.) My experiences with people from Nordic countries who I have met have been overwhelmingly positive. Your social democracies are superior to our laissez faire capitalism, they make more sense, are more stable and less subject to natural instability cycles inherent to the system. Nothing is cut-and-dry, there are blended forms of political and economic organization, just like there are blended classes, and new forms are always emerging as history marches. If you want to believe that your social democracies are an island within capitalism, that’s mostly true! But to a socialist, it is not socialism. Quoting a Wikipedia article at us when most of us are acutely aware of how it is used by businesses and governments to shape our remembrance of history and the ideas with which we use to shape the world, comes off as incredibly weak and unconvincing, especially when so many of us spend years studying independently, having discussions and organizing our communities. You can quote wikipedia but it will never convince a socialist. I hope you become more mindful of where you are getting your information and whom that particular interpretation of facts serves. Spoiler alert! Its the owners of private property, the means of production, which have always shaped history and defined the classes and antagonisms inherent to them.
Question. How can we be sure to trust that the elected committees do not turn society into an authoritarian regime? Would it work like standard western democracy, i.e. electing a party / parties to form a “government” (in this case committee; semantics)?
Edit: I truly appreciate everybody who takes the time to write elaborate answers pertaining to my question. I will read and respond once I have the opportunity and in that case, I hope eventual followup questions are welcomed. :)
The key is in one of the words you’ve said:
ELECTED committee
You don’t have to trust that they won’t turn authoritarian. If you see authoritarian tendencies and you don’t like them, you vote them out.
Would it work like standard western democracy, i.e. electing a party / parties to form a “government”
That depends on who you ask. An anarchist will tell you no, a communist will tell you a different answer, etc. I’m a Marxist-Leninist so I’ll answer to that as a Marxist-Leninist.
In a Marxist-Leninist state, there is only one party. In the same way that your country only have one justice system, your country only has one socialized system of healthcare (if at all), etc, there would be need only for one party: the party that represents the interests of the workers. This party would have a vanguard of communist intellectuals (liable to being removed from their position by popular vote), who would be in a constant back-and-forth democratic dialogue with the workers and their representation in worker-councils. The needs and demands of the workers would be translated to Marxist ideology, which is flexible depending on the circumstances, the culture, and the society it’s applied to, and policy would be drafted, approved and adopted.
A good example of this in action is detailed in a book called “how the workers’ parliaments saved the Cuban Revolution”, by Pedro Ross. It details the immense level of popular participation in the drafting, approval, implementation and execution of policy in Cuba during the 1990s “periodo especial”, a huge economic crisis precipitated by the dissolution of their biggest trading partner, the USSR. Literal millions of people, through their unions and through worker councils, participated democratically in deciding which sectors of the economy they wanted to preserve most, which ones least, which workers are redundant and which aren’t, which goods and services should be prioritised in the planned economy, how to organize local organic farms everywhere (including workplaces) in order to minimize food imports… All of this happened in a back-and-forth, multi-year exercise, between the top representatives of the government, the specialists (e.g. economists, hospital directors, transit company directors, etc.), and the direct representatives of the people through the worker’s councils. It’s truly one of the most explicit and overwhelming examples of democracy that I’ve ever encountered.
gestures broadly at elected officials now
What’s your point?
What do you think about people who claim only having one party is undemocratic? I do believe there should be a certain freedom to form parties of your own and eventually run for election, but this is standard in most western countries and I’m unsure if I’m missing some benefit to only having one party. Genuine question by the way.
Thanks for being open to discussion, I appreciate it. I’ll start talking about the reality of multi-party systems and liberal democracy.
Generally, multi-party systems aren’t democratic if we adhere to the definition that “the power of legislation is in the hands of the people”, which I think would be a good premise for a parliamentary multi-party system. Ideally, you’d choose a platform in elections, which has a given program, or even create your own platform if you don’t feel represented enough. Then, this platform supports its program in a Congress, and votes through representatives to pass legislation according to its program. Sounds good, but let’s examine whether the policy that people want to enact is actually passed, and whether policy that people don’t want to enact is passed.
We can start with the case of the US. The vast majority of Americans support an extended universal healthcare system of some sort. The technical details are a bit hazy, but the reality is that most people would support such a system as poll after poll shows. Yet, the years pass, and there’s basically no progress in this direction, how is this democratic? How come if a majority of people support this, it’s not pushed forwards and legislated? It’s the same with abortion rights, a vast majority of Americans believe in legal abortion rights for women, yet no legislation is passed in that regard and many states actually go backwards. A majority would support increased taxes on the extra-wealthy and on big companies. Study after study show that public opinion is one of the worst predictors for policy, i.e., there’s barely any correlation at all between polls on policy, and actual passing of policy. Can we say that there’s an actual democracy in the US, when the interests of the people don’t correlate with legislation?
I’ll talk about Europe now, since I’m Spanish and it’s a closer example to me. Recently we assisted to the outrageous example of Macron unilaterally skipping Congress to increase the retirement age against the desires of basically the entirety of France. Huge protests broke out, he was vilified in social media, and all polls showed that this was an extremely unpopular decision. Yet it passed. The same happened all over the EU during the 2010 Euro crisis. Austerity policy was enforced by the authorities everywhere: lowering expenditure on healthcare, education and public retirement pensions, reducing investment in infrastructure, increasing taxes such as VAT… Again, this was extremely unpopular and against the desires of most people. It’s been a decade and a half since then, and these austerity policies are still in place. VAT is still higher than it was, expenditure in healthcare and education hasn’t increased to the levels prior to the crisis… Yet another example of blatant anti-democracy. If the policy isn’t carried out with the will of the people, the system isn’t democratic.
I could go on giving examples of failed cases of policy in multi-party systems, but now I’ll do the opposite and bring examples of multi-party systems that actually applied popular policy.
Salvador Allende was a Chilean leftist politician in the previous century, who was elected by a majority of citizens to carry out nationalizations of the mining industry (the heart of the economy of the country at the time), and to improve the welfare state. His term didn’t last very long at all, because when popular policy started being actually enacted in a democratic fashion, a fascist coup murdered him and replaced him with a fascist dictator.
In the Spanish Second Republic, a similar thing happened. In the 30s, a very progressive leftist government was elected, and promised to carry out land reform, i.e. expropriation from big landowners and redistribution of land to the farmers in a country which was primarily agrarian. It suffered the same fate: a fascist coup, a bloody civil war, and almost 40 years of fascism.
In Iran, under the administration of Mosaddegh, a leftist secular politician who wanted to make sure that the Iranian oil was profiting the majority of Iranians instead of the Shah and a few British companies, nationalised the oil industry. This was met with economical blockade, with paid actors pretending to be communists destroying private property to agitate people, and fake protests organized by the mafia funded by the MI6 and the CIA ousting him from the government.
Now let’s go to a period in which actually progressive policy was passed in Europe in a popular and democratic fashion: the post-WW2 period. Under the looming threat of a socialist revolution, and the high level of labour organization through unions, the governments of Europe were successfully pressured into passing meaningful legislation on the limit of working hours per week, on progressive tax systems, on welfare state (healthcare, education and pensions)…
So it seems to me, that the only way to make governments pass actually progressive and democratic policy that most people agree with, is through the organization of workers and the threat of a communist revolution. That, if people just vote socialists into power without organizing labor, they suffer coups, that if they vote social-democrats they get austerity and antidemocratic policy. What percentage of Europe agreed to increase the military budget after the start of the war in Ukraine? I’m not trying to argue whether that’s a good or a bad policy, I’m just saying all polls showed it was an originally unpopular decision, yet it was carried out.
If the only way to enforce governments to enact popular, progressive and democratic policy, is through the organization of labor, then why would I want multi-party systems instead of a system of representation of workers in a single, unified, democratic structure?
I know it’s a long answer, but I appreciate it if you made it to the end.
I’ll jump in with an extra question here if I may:
So say you have two companies, doing more or kess the same thing, company A and company B.
If the workers in those companies detain their respective means of production, why wouldn’t they want to do what we see today:
“Hire” the best ones from the other company, grow so they all get more of it, intimidate concurrence etc? I mean it’s not just because there are lots of bosses instead of just some, that it will solve those problems?
Also, if company A does well, won’t people apply for work there, but ot for company B that (say) does less well? Wouldnt company A try to limit hired if they don’t fall in line with what they are thinking/doing etc.?
I just see the same system but with artificial blocks for the most obvious things, blocks people (who want it, I mean those crazy prycopathic bosses will still be around, they’re just not a CEO any more) will just work around.
Yes and no. Most Marxists advocate for a form of Whole-Process People’s Democracy, or Soviet Democracy. Essentially, the idea is that, rather than just having state, local, and federal elections (as a brief example), there are far more rungs you can directly elect and participate in. This ideally holds people accountable better than western democracies do.
Removed by mod
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
I think that article is inaccurate. I’ve always seen communism described as a state-less society.
Ugh… Who wrote that… “Communism is when you have a communal toothbrush”…
“All property is communally owned”, said literally no socialist ever in history. It’s always funny to show the home ownership rate by country to people who claim “you don’t own anything in socialism”.
Marx specifically refers to the elements of government that uphold class society as the “state.” Communism, in the Marxist sense, has a government, central planning, and administration. The “state” whithers away via replacing elements of Capitalism with Socialism, removing aspects like Private Property Rights.
You may want to read Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx describes the transition from Capitalism to lower-stage Communism (Socialism in modern lingo), to upper-stage Communism.
I wouldn’t be using the online version of the history channel. Also communism has no state and therefore no single centralised government.
That’s Anarcho-Communism, not Marxism.
Communism in Marxism still has a government, just not what Marx called “the State.” The State, for Marx, is made up of the elements of government that uphold class society, ie Private Property Rights. Central Planning is a core concept of Marxism, and Marxists see administration, elections, councils, and so forth as necessary functions of society.
I recommend reading Critique of the Gotha Programme
Do you do anything but argue about marxism?
Yep, I like to talk about gaming and cooking, but the sheer amount of ill-informed takes on Marxism that are entirely unsupported by Marx’s writings is overwhelmingly popular on several Lemmy instances.
It sounds great on paper but it seems to rely too much on hoping everyone from the ground up isn’t going to get greedy and skim or give themselves and friends a special deal. Humans aren’t selfless. Even Gene Roddenberry gave up hope on his idea of a future, socialist humanity, because he realized humans are too selfish to establish a system like that. We should still try though. Better than then we have now
I think it is generally because of our deeply capitalist society and upbringing that we are told to believe people are greedy and selfish, therefore we must be greedy and selfish ourselves in order to not get taken advantage of, or replaced.
People gain power and become greedy and selfish. It’s not a capitalist thing, it’s been going on throughout all recorded history
People’s ideas come from their Material Conditions.
I think humans in general are more equipped to have empathy for a smaller tribe compared a whole Nation, let alone to billions of people world wide. It’s easier to share what you have with your neighbor rather than someone you have never met.
humans in general are more equipped to have empathy for a smaller tribe
not even - the small tribe is who tribe members with dark triad personality traits hurt the most
I agree.
impossible not to have greedy people with high drive, they have always existed and will always exist. And given that greed and high drive is a very explosive combination they will always wreck these systems.
Yeah that’s really what my point boils down to. We humans ruin everything
It sounds great on paper but it seems to rely too much on hoping everyone from the ground up isn’t going to get greedy and skim or give themselves and friends a special deal.
What on Earth are you referring to? How would one “skim?” What structures do you think exist in Communism that would allow this?
Huh? Do you think the people on top aren’t going to get more money, better food, better everything? That’s been proven over and over and in America? That would be abused immediately. Do you think things work for free in a socialist society? If there’s money, there will be skimming. And we’re talking about socialism. Not communism. I’ve lived under a communist regime, it’s not good. You young North American people shouldn’t dream about that shit.
Socialism is good. Communism has been bastardized and corrupted beyond repair.
Huh? Do you think the people on top aren’t going to get more money, better food, better everything? That’s been proven over and over and in America?
Historically, disparity drastically decreased in AES countries. Additionally, America is Capitalist, not sure what your point is.
Do you think things work for free in a socialist society?
No, workers still work, but collectively own and control the production and distribution.
f there’s money, there will be skimming. And we’re talking about socialism. Not communism. I’ve lived under a communist regime, it’s not good. You young North American people shouldn’t dream about that shit.
This post specifically is about Marxism, it’s Communist. Additionally, if you don’t mind, where did you live, and what happened?
Socialism is good. Communism has been bastardized and corrupted beyond repair.
Socialism is the path to Communism, it’s difficult to untie the two.
That’s a decent write-up, but has some issues like:
"[China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam] can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. "
Uh… in every country the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. In a standard western democracy like say the UK, the government passes laws which regulate the economic and political system. They may choose to be hands-off when it comes to certain things, but ultimately they’re in control. At any point a law can be change, or a court decision can be changed so that what was once hands-off is now regulated.
What would it even look like for a country to not fully control all aspects of the economic and political system? IMO that only happens in a failed state when the government simply lacks the power to enforce laws. The difference between China and the USA is just a matter of degree. In China there are more regulations in general, and there are more state-owned enterprises.
Also, Social Democracy describes the US. It’s again a matter of degree. Yes in the Nordic countries there are more state-owned things, and more public benefits. But, in the US, even though ambulances are mostly private and for-profit, fire trucks are not. Privately owned toll roads exist, but they’re rare. The government pays for and runs schools. Potholes are filled by government employees. Mass transit is almost always city-owned. And, instead of the Pinkertons, cities use police forces where everyone’s a government employee. There are a lot of things that could be privatized in the US, but almost nobody actually wants everything to be a privately-owned for profit capitalist enterprise.
And socialism in pure form sounds like utopia
Sorry mate, that argument is already 200 years old. There’s a difference between utopian socialism (English Owenists or Russian Socialist Revolutionaries were good examples of this), and scientific socialism. Engels wrote an essay about it called, well, “Socialism: utopian and scientific” around 150+ years ago. Tl;dr: Marxists aren’t utopians, as proven by the success of the Russian Revolution or the Cuban Revolution in establishing long-lasting, stable political systems, with a total and complete absence of exploitation of the surplus value of workers by a capitalist class.
The only problem with implementing it is a lack of genuine compliance from the first few generations. If they can be compelled to contribute, to get it all stable and done and show why it’s good, then their children will reap the rewards of that success. That’s why some socialists see a driven party in it for the long haul to be necessary to get there.
Besides, your comment is literally against rule 3. I’m reporting you.
Removed by mod
I wonder if some common pitfalls like too much party control over committees, lying about quotas for financial gain, and the vulnerabilities of a society in revolt could be squeezed in, or perhaps covered in a second image.
Orthodox Marxism isn’t always enough, and is not beyond revision and improvements (hence the many neo-marxists). Critical Theorists have addressed Marxism as well as Capitalism after all.
That said, the post is good and educational as is, and has my up vote.
See you at the first plenary session comarades!
After reading this, i now understand less about socialism.
What part is confusing?
This comic makes a ton of logical leaps, by which i mean that it assumes that the reader is already familiar with certain information and leaves it implied. More broadly, it seems to assume that the audience already agrees that communism is the best. I’m particularly annoyed at the second pannel describing a command economy in a very short and unconvincing way, as if the audience already knows and agrees.
I have a rudimentary knowledge of political taxonomy and this is very very confusing.
But you know what, at least it’s written in plain language. A mistake that communists often make is using their vocabulary (alienation, ideology, bourgeoisie) as if everyone knows what it means, i’m glad this isn’t the case here
If people who make things own them, who manages the “big picture” ideas? CEO pay tells me that requires the power of thousands of
peasantsworkers.Workers are perfectly good at self-organizing without them. “I’m the ideas guy” is stated by people who do little and should not be trusted.
Elected officials and councils.
I would love to see a policy where there is a variable tax rate on companies based on employees satisfaction.
If a company has a largely unhappy workforce they would be taxed most of their profits.
If a company has a extremely happy workforce then it can reduce the taxation rate below the standard rate. And employees can still vote on this 2 years after termination.
It incentivises companies to invest more in the employees wellbeing, and punishes companies that take practice in unsustainable hiring and mass layoffs later.
If it is unavoidable that a company needs to downsize, they would be incentivised to help employees find new employment.
I’m sure there is a large issue I’m not seeing with this but I’m pretty fond of the idea.
There is a simpler way to do this, and it’s a worker cooperative. Workers own the business and they democratically decide what the business does. There is no separation between the leadership and the workforce. Maintaining that separation will always result in conflict because the interests of the owners will never be the same as those of the workers.
How is that simpler?
It sounds way more complex to logistically set up a system like that. Best case is a lot of regulation needed, worse case is a complete overhaul of the economy.
It already exists. See for example Mondragon
The major issue is that it has to compete on a global market that’s exploitative.
100% agree with the exploitative global market.
Also, that was an interesting read and a great example of an ideal company’s practice.
Though it was a bit vague on where the start up funding came from. Which is what I was most curious about (and my main reason I consider the practice complex to implement)
Mondragon seems to be founded by a generous man that created the company from the ground up with these principles in mind, but unfortunately most people with the resources to this kind of business do not have such great ideals (and for the most part, they have these resources because they don’t have them and thus exploited workers)
How would a business take off the ground in this scenario without a selfless benefactor?
Also it’s a much different beast to convert an already established company like amazon and convert that to the same system. Mainly in that the owners and shareholders do not want to give up their investment for nothing.
What are the options then? Steal the company from the amazon investors in spite of the capital they invested to the company? Or pay them off?(would be expensive if going by market value)
Stealing would still be dystopian. I have no love for amazon investors, but imagine a lovely small family-owned business that invested all their life savings into it, before being taken from them because they hired some teenagers to help them for the summer.
It’s complex, and not likely compatible with the current economy (unless the rich bastard’s hearts grow 3 sizes large), but it would be nice if this business type was more widespread.
I consider the tax rate suggestion a good way to integrate the employee vote with capitalism. it still “survival of the fittest” but the “fittest” would be a profitable company that looks after it’s employees.
Yeah, it’s not an easy problem to solve. As someone who is mainly versed in the socialist tradition I view class conflict as the primary impedement to social progress. And any system that incorporates competition will, in my view, generate class conflict. It’s all or nothing: you can’t have a cooperative structure operating within a competetive framework.
In practical terms, this has meant a lot of different things over the past few centuries. Nobody has found the correct answer. In the present system, the first step is unionization and increasing class consciousness among the labor force. The second step is coordinated action via targeted mass action (think cross-industry work stoppages that disrupt production and logistics). Essentially you cripple the owner class at large by disrupting their profits and force them to make concessions. You could have a gradual move towards cooperative ownership by forcing down the ratio of CEO to average worker pay. You could force the passage of the types of tax reform that you are arguing for. You could force the passage of social welfare reform.
But ultimately this movement would have to be worker-led, because the ruling class will always invent new ways to entrench themselves in power. John Maynard Keynes referred to the “euthenasia of the rentier class”. In other words, they would humanely pass into the dust bin of history because they would no longer exist as a class, because the workers would not tolerate them.
i thought the crying guy was Hatsune Miku at first LOL
It surprises me so that any functioning democracy isn’t automatically socialist.
It infuriates me that our countries are called „democracies“. Why is our economy not democratic than? The economy is mostly ruled like any feudal empire.
Well, it just goes back to the root of the word. Ancient Greece, where the word democracy comes from, was far from what we would call a democracy nowadays.
Not only did they own slaves (who obviously could not vote) but the only people that could vote, as far as I remember, were landed men. If you were not a man, or did not own land, you could not vote.
But yeah, I agree with your point.
That’s the central question of Reform or Revolution, and why the majority of Leftists believe Reform to be too unlikely to outright impossible, and therefore Revolution the correct path. Rosa Luxemburg wrote about it in Reform or Revolution.
But why is reform not happening?
To greatly simplify a complex and still contested issue, Capitalist States are designed to prevent it. Using the US as an example, the two party FPTP system is designed to prevent third parties from winning, leaving the only 2 parties that can gain the bulk of Capitalist support. Even in the event of Leftists winning, the Military will often coup the leader with the help of the US, like Allende in Chile.
Because the bourgeois were happy to get power when they were excluded from it in the monarchy, but they are very much not happy to leave peasants get any power.
Francr history is very telling of this. The question of how the elections should be made was a hot topic. Representative democracy is something the bourgeoisie wants because it allows it to stay in power. Because the bourgeois are better armed to be elected than the people. Rousseau warned of this even before the first French revolution.
I’m sure the US revolution went the same way. The crazy US voting system looks very much like it was crafted for the bourgeois to stay keep all the power.
Most of them are, to limited degrees. America has the Post Office, interstate roadways, public education for children, public libraries, and many other government services that are fundamentally socialist in nature.
We don’t call them that because of propaganda. And many in government (especially on the right) work very hard to destroy those systems because they are socialist and empower workers.
The idea of letting the “free market” manage these things is insane and always leads to bad outcomes, we have tried this before. People who say “economic planning doesn’t work” only exist because economic planning allowed them to live freely and be educated enough to form those big words instead of being locked to the land they were born on as peasant workers.
Words I can agree to.
