Just don’t be a MAGA Communist, or one of those weird trad white people shits
googles
… Oh not right wingers adopting left wing rhetoric. That never ends well.
Fuck Jackson Hinkle.
not going to judge what turns you on
Noooooo 🫠 not like that…
Oh god, that’s an image I can’t unimagine… 🫠
Left unity
LEFT UNITY!
(in all caps this time)
Removed by mod
When ever you see someone say this you can guarantee they have no problem with actual fascists
I can assure you that I have a problem with all types of fascists and authoritarians no matter the aesthetic.
You want failure and don’t want communism or socialism in other words.
Marxists aren’t fascists, though. Fascism is insepparable from Capitalism and bourgeois interests. Further, considering Marxists to be “authoritarian” implies that the only non-authoritarian form of government is a fully horizontal, Anarchist structure. Grouping all governments together as “fascist” is just a smokescreen in front of the quantitative and qualitative differenced between forms of government, which are often extreme, as they have historically been between Marxists and fascists.
State capitalism is capitalism, even if it’s pretending to be Marxist.
“koala bears are bears, even if they’re pretending they’re marsupials”
It’s more: koala bears are marsupials, even if they’re called bears.
When the principle aspects of an economy are controlled by the public, ie large firms and key industries, it is safely considered to have moved beyond Capitalism into Socialism as the Mode of Production. As all transfers from one Mode of Production into the next are both instant and gradual, the Mode of Production overall has changed while still being stamped with remnants of the former that wither over time as the state resolves contradictions in favor of the new Mode of Production.
Labelling all Socialist societies run by Marxists as “State Capitalist” when they have clearly transitioned to a new form of society incompatible with the old order, is a gross mistake in analysis.
No. Socialism as a mode of production is the owning of the means of production by the workers, not the State. For a worker, it doesn’t change anything if their overlords are politicians or industrialists.
Yeah, but you’ve already admitted that you can’t actually identify fascists
Marxists are absolutely leftists. Fascism is Capitalism when it needs to violently defend itself, meanwhile Marxist movements throughout history have established Socialist systems that dramatically improved the lives of the working class. I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds, Marxist movements and fascist movements are in no way similar and Dr. Michael Parenti does a great job analyzing them historically.
tankies (ie people who endorse violence as a valid path forward from right here) == marxists?? man, i don’t know jack
people who endorse violence as a valid path forward from right here
The definition of tankie grows more expensive every day! Now it includes everyone except the most radical pacifists.
You heard it here, even social democrats are tankies
“Tankie” is the modern terminally online equivalent to “commie” or “pinko.” It’s just a pejorative for those who support Marxist movements around the world.
By your definition, though, the belief that the use of force is necessary to progress, ie revolution, Marxists are indeed “tankies.” Marxism is thoroughly revolutionary, a fact made clear repeatedly by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and proven by their successors.
Who in my community should I shoot to make the world class free?
Would you have quibbled less if I had said “authoritarianism” instead of “violence”? I wasn’t trying to be slanted, that was genuinely my impression of what the term meant.
You cannot have Marxist views if you are not in favor of using violence to impose Marxist ideals?
All states are authoritarian, in that all represent primarily one class in society that is dominant, and weild state power to subjugate those who would resist the system. In Capitalism, that class in power is the bourgeoisie, in Socialism, that class is the Proletariat. Revolution is necessary to bring about Socialism, ergo use of authority is also necessary, and core to Marxism, just as it was authoritarian for the French to overthrow the Monarchy, no matter how justified morally said use of authority was.
I recommend reading Friedrich Engels’ On Authority if you want a Marxist perspective from the Luigi of the M&E duo.
All states are authoritarian
It is not a binary distinction. It is also not something all ideologies seek to use as a tool. Rather, some seek to minimize it. I think you are telling me Marxism is an ideology that seeks to fully utilize authoritarianism, almost as though it WERE a binary distinction, and there is no point in going half way.
Overall I take your response in support of authoritarianism to mean you would have found that a less objectionable definition.
You know what the single most powerful force in human history is?
Organization. Which is always hierarchal. It doesn’t have to mean socially, but definitely organizationally.
If anarchism didn’t exist, the CIA would have had to create it.
You know what the most common attribute of Anarchist revolutions is? They all failed. Every single one of them. That is what you want. Failure.
You know what the single most powerful force in human history is?
Organization.
This is a subjective statement.
Organization. Which is always hierarchal.
This is an untrue statement.
You know what the most common attribute of Anarchist revolutions is? They all failed. Every single one of them. That is what you want. Failure.
Save this one until you are crowing at me from the parapets of your Utopia. Oh wait, it has to be global, so I guess I’m the one inside the walls.
dogs aren’t canines, they’re birds and can fuck off
If the communists and state Socialists are willing to work alongside anarchists like me than I would gladly accept their help in the fight for liberation. However left unity cannot come through coercion or force.
Communism stateless anti authoritarian? Are we not confused with Anarchism?
The end goal of Communism is for what we know as “the state” to wither away as peoples of all nations learn to function together. Each state that exists currently must choose Socialism. Be it revolution with words and actions, or by a armed uprising to force out those that refuse to stop supporting the dictatorship of the bourgeois.
All acts of revolution are an exertion of authority/will over what exists. Anarchists believe (at least very generally speaking, but I will yield my own lack of understanding) that “the state” should go away from the jump. Which from a Communist or non-anarcho versions of Socialism/Communism perspective doesn’t work at the scale of whole nations that we have. Especially while the bulk of everyday people still need things they already know or need to function as they learn to place peoples’ needs over profits. Being fair, this mass learning is crucial for all versions of anti-capitalist/imperialist political spectrum.
Though I can see how real dedicated Anarchists that hold the revolutionary spirit and the will to put in the very hard work could happen in smaller scales. Like in getting folks in rural areas to collectivize various farms to grow and rotate crops and everyone that can contribute work/resources. Or in small towns where everyone already kind of knows everyone to some level. Small towns with lots of rural areas around them would be like the best option of course.
The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish the state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm
What does “Commune” entail in this context?
A Commune, in Marxist-Leninist theory, is a revolutionary political-economic structure where the proletariat collectively owns and democratically controls the means of production, abolishing capitalist hierarchies and bourgeois state machinery. It is rooted in the analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871 by Marx and Engels who saw it as a prototype of proletarian dictatorship. The key aspect of a commune is that it embodies direct workers’ democracy, dismantling the separation between state and society. Lenin further expanded this as a transitional framework where a decentralized network of soviets composed of laborers self-govern, eroding class distinctions and advancing toward a stateless, classless communism.
Are there any examples of this ‘late stage Communism’? I thought it was more about the central planning aspect. And if not are the USSR/China/Russia even Communist?
Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn’t existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.
Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.
For about 30 years from around 1950 the American government believed communism was so liable to spread that their only option for maintaining a capitalist world hegemony was direct intervention in communist countries and countries with strong communist movements. See: domino theory. They even worried about it domestically which was part of the motivation for McCarthyism.
If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn’t one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.
It’s an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.
This is all so wrong. First of all, most anarchist advocate for prefiguritive politics, or “building a new world within the shell of the old” which is why things like Food Not Bombs exists, along with many many other anarchist projects specifically aimed at building a stateless, moneyless, classes society. They don’t NOT want to simply abolish the state completely overnight.
Anarchists have come up with a WHOLE lot of ways that a society could be run, and they generally don’t think that there’s a one size fits all solution that would work for everybody.
You haven’t read a single thing about anarchism that didn’t come from a Marxist source, have you?
The fact that anarchists can’t agree on a unified course of action is a big part of the reason why all these different ways of running society that people have dreamed up remain firmly in the realm of fantasy.
There are at least six feuding Marxist orgs where I live, I don’t think this is a valid critique of anarchism.
Sure, in initial stages you’ll have many different orgs. This was the case during Russian revolution as well. However, eventually a single unified vanguard emerges and people get on the same page regarding how to move forward. There is no mechanism for creating a unified vanguard under anarchist approach where there is no central authority by design.
Good point.
What a fucking straw man definition lmao
The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, believe that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of state-socialism, which supposedly leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish the state completely overnight, understanding that the conditions under which the state can be abolished must be different from the conditions which allowed the state to flourish
FTFY
Also to me the biggest reason I call myself an anarchist is that I respect the diversity of not only tactics for abolition of the state and capital, but also the diversity of ways communal living may look when influenced by difference socioecological conditions.
A socialist revolution cannot magically abolish relations that have been internalized by a society born out of capitalism. The notion that you can just flip a switch and transition from one type of society to another is precisely what underpins anarchist achievements to date.
Marxists and Anarchists have a different view on what the “state” entails, and what constitutes “class.” The former see the state as an instrument of class oppression, while the latter see it as an institution of hierarchy. The former see class as relations to production, the latter see class as relations of hierarchy.
I recommend reading my comment here where I go over why this is the case, and why Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned economy, while Anarchists see Communism as a fully decentralized network of communes, and neither recognizes the other as truly “stateless” or “classless” due to these differences.
See my comment here.
You better not be sending me into recursion when I click this
hold my marxist theory, i’m going in.
I swear every time I read some commie stuff I get halfway and it starts referencing other stuff which I click and then I get halfway and then it references something else and suddenly I’m reading critiques from 1800
Lol. If we didn’t do that then we would get accused of not including our sources. But i get your point, sometimes we can tend to be overly thorough.
I view this as being a bit like mathematics. The things we say make sense to someone who is already versed in the subject but for someone who doesn’t already understand or agree with certain concepts or ideas we don’t necessarily want to rehash arguments that were already laid out in works a hundred years prior so we just refer back to those in the same way that when you do modern mathematics you don’t need to repeat proofs that were already done in the 19th century. You can just take those theorems as given and if you are really interested in how they were derived you can still go back to the original literature and read up on it.
Of course you can still engage with and understand the more advanced arguments even without going all the way back to the basics but then you need to accept certain things as axiomatic, because it would take too much time to go back and explain them every time.
Let’s say for instance that we are talking about imperialism. To clarify what exactly we mean when we talk about imperialism we may briefly give the Leninist definition of imperialism. You can either accept that this is the definition or you can ask why. Why is it defined that way and why does it make sense? Well for that you would have to go and read Lenin’s work on Imperialism. Which in turn references but does not necessarily thoroughly explain certain concepts about the nature of capitalism that were worked out earlier by Marx.
You see, you can either choose to go down this rabbit hole and invest the time it takes to really go to the basics and build up from there, or you can take it as given that this has already been worked out and you can try and understand how we apply it to the modern day, which saves time and is more practical. Neither is wrong, it just depends on your personal interest.
I’m clicking all the “read my other comment” links until I’ve basically read Capital Vol. 1 in its entirety through Lemmy posts.
Lmao, I’ve tried to minimize my copy-pasting of comments over time so there’s more links in my comments now, haha.
Plenty of communists see a form of Anarchism as the goal endpoint, but realize the need for strong state power in the hands of workers to get there.
Do you have any examples? I’m not aware of this, Marxists generally advocate for a centralized stateless society while Anarchists advocate for horizontalist structures, generally.
I’m not thoroughly read up on theory and I’m not about to heavily defend the previous argument. I’m still not certain after reading in between replying here.
I don’t see why a centralized state can’t have more flattened power hierarchies, especially as needs and material conditions are improved.
The structure of society largely depends on the mode of production. As production advances well into Communism, it would likely flatten more and more, though administration and whatnot may still continue to exist.
anti authoritarian and the chinese flag, that’s a good joke.
[looks at poster username]
oh that was not a joke. worse
missed him on the meme.
Why is the NK flag here?
because DPRK is an existing socialist state
Socialism is when the Prime Minister (?, I don’t know what his official title is) serves for life and his son becomes the next PM?
this is a misunderstanding of the structure of the DPRK state apparatus. it isn’t entirely your fault, making people believe that North Korea is a wacky hermit kingdom is something the western press likes to do
I don’t think anti-authoritarian can be there at the same time as North Korea
So, what makes korea more authoritarian than, lets say, china?
both are evil authoritarian states because you can’t put american troops there
