- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/29626672
On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
Almost every country on the planet is a mixed economy. There are no pure capitalist or socialist countries that I know of.
When people speak of Capitalism and Socialism, they aren’t speaking of the Private and Public sectors. In the US, for example, the millitary is in the public sector, but its purpose is to extract vast profits in the private sector.
Instead, what matters is which aspect of society is the principle, ie which controls large firms, key industries, and the government. That’s why Cuba, despite having a private sector, is Socialist, while Scandinavia is Capitalist.
No. Scandinavia has national bargaining agreements. It’s more socialist than it is capitalist. Yours is a dumb reactionary definition.
Having national bargaining agreements in an economy driven by Private Ownership of large firms and key industries does not make it more socialist than capitalist. It means labor organization is stronger than in other Capitalist countries, but the character of the economy is the same underneath. I wouldn’t call Marxist analysis “dumb and reactionary.”
Marx never got to see socialism implemented. When discussing its implementation, he is not a good source. When discussing the issues of capitalism, he is great. This absolutist, primitive thinking on the matter only serves the bourgeoisie.
I really don’t think you’ve engaged much with Marx if you think the fundamental distinctions between Capitalism and Socialism have changed to the point of calling systems thoroughly dominated by Private Property “more Socialist than Capitalist.” Marx called this Social Democracy “Conservative Socialism,” or “Bourgeois Socialism:”
His analysis is still on the nose for Social Democracy, where worker protections are sliding, and the system itself reliant on exploiting the Global South.
That’s Marx’s conclusion. Again, he did not see what happened in the 20th century and revolutionary socialism failed catastrophically. We will not get the chance to try that again. Cry into your copy of Capital all you want.
Socialism exists in forms that are not pure. Every co-op is socialism existing within capitalism. And they are worth celebrating their successes. Instead of adhering to some rigid doctrine that has failed to make any sustained progress for two centuries now.
Revolutionary Socialism hasn’t failed catastrophically, there are still Socialist states and more are cropping up. And further, I already acknowledged that there’s no such thing as a “pure” system, Cuba for example has private property in a limited fashion. It’s still Socialist, because the large firms and key industries are public.
As for cooperatives, they aren’t anything in and of themselves. In the context of a Capitalist economy, they are a little cooperative bit of the overall Capitalist pie, they still rely on Capitalist infrastructure, Capitalist aquisition of raw materials, and consumers who gain their wages from Capitalist jobs. It’s certainly a better form of organization for those who can find or start one, but to give it the descriptor for a broad system is devoid of context.
Marxism absolutely isn’t rigid, it’s seen success in many countries and continues to get developed and iterated. This is why I say you haven’t actually engaged with Marx, your criticisms of Marxism are criticisms of a strawman. You could do with reading some of the works listed in the post body, I recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme, I think you’ll find it relevant.