GrayoxKnow the difference.
GiganSo the tens of millions of people that died under communism were all landlords? Wow, what are the chances of that
๐ ๐ ๐ง
Cowbee [he/they]AES countries were and are legitimate attempts at building Communism. People have died in these countries, but at the same time many saw drastic increases in quality of life and industrialization. Dismissing AES is usually a sign of not understanding Marxism.
@Cowbee
I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren't even successful at achieving communism.
I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren't even successful at achieving communism.
What โcore principles of Communismโ were abandoned?
Why do you believe a country can achieve a global, worker owned republic without class, money, or a state while Capitalist states exist?
@Cowbee
Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.
Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.
There was not a new โbeaurocratic class.โ Government ownership of the Means of Production is Socialist, as profits are controlled collectively, rather than by Capitalists. Beaurocrats and state planners were not a โnew classโ but an extension of the workers.
The whithering away of the state is IMPOSSIBLE until global Socialism has been achieved. The USSR could not possibly have gotten rid of the military while hostile Capitalist countries existed. Additionally, Statelessness in the Marxian sense doesnโt mean no government, but a lack of instruments by which one class oppresses another.
Wage Labor did not persist for the sake of Capitalist profit, but to be used via the government, which paid for generous safety nets. To eliminate money in a Socialist state takes a long time, and cannot simply be done overnight.
I really think you need to revisit Marx. I suggest Critique of the Gotha Programme.
@Cowbee
1. There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
1. There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
@Cowbee
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.
@Cowbee
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.
@Cowbee
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.
Statelessness comes after Socialismโs contradictions have been eliminated. You are anarchist-washing Marx here.
I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme.
The persistance of money and wages did not stand against the progress of Socialism. Again, Capitalist profit was eliminated, the state directed the products of labor, not Capitalists. Marx was not an Anarchist, he did not believe money could be done away with immediately. The USSR attempted to do away with Money, but were not yet developed enough to handle it.
It necessitates global Socialism to be achieved, as Capitalism stands against Socialism. The military cannot be done away with as long as there is Capitalism. Moving into Comminism without completing the negation of the negation, in dialectical-speak, is a mechanical transition that leaves the Socialist state open to invasion and plundering.
Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.
How do you believe Marx envisaged administration?
@Cowbee
While it's true that in a socialist society, bureaucrats could theoretically be accountable to the rest of the workers, the reality in many socialist states, including the Soviet Union, was that bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the rest of the working class which resulted in a hierarchical society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism. Additionally,...
While it's true that in a socialist society, bureaucrats could theoretically be accountable to the rest of the workers, the reality in many socialist states, including the Soviet Union, was that bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the rest of the working class which resulted in a hierarchical society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism. Additionally,...
@Cowbee
...the concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats often led to abuses and corruption, undermining the democratic ideals of socialism. Thus, while bureaucrats may theoretically be part of the working class, the way power was exercised in many socialist states did not align with the egalitarian goals of socialism.
...the concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats often led to abuses and corruption, undermining the democratic ideals of socialism. Thus, while bureaucrats may theoretically be part of the working class, the way power was exercised in many socialist states did not align with the egalitarian goals of socialism.
Yes, there was corruption. The USSR was of course imperfect, but this is not sufficient to say it was a betrayal of Communist ideals.
Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. The goal of Communism is not equality! Instead, the goal is proving from everyoneโs abilities to everyoneโs needs.
Anti-hierarchy is not Marxist, but Anarchist.
@Cowbee
The goal of communism is equality and anti-hierarchy, quite literally the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, and resources are distributed according to need. True equality and freedom for all individuals is the goal, where everyone can contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.
The goal of communism is equality and anti-hierarchy, quite literally the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, and resources are distributed according to need. True equality and freedom for all individuals is the goal, where everyone can contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.
Again, I am going to recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Marx specifically states that humans are not equal, else they would not be different, and thus have unequal needs and abilities. It is because of this that the goal is โfrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.โ This quote specifically comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Hierarchy is unjust if it is in contradiction, if it is through a worker state it ceases to be unjust, and merely becomes what must be done. Engels elaborates on this im On Authority.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he was accepting of administration and a gradual buildup towards Communism.
@Cowbee
Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I've read it and I don't agree with it. I disagree with Marx's emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.
Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I've read it and I don't agree with it. I disagree with Marx's emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.
You couldโve said that from the start, that you arenโt a Marxist.
I donโt believe you can say that Marxism is a betrayal of Communism any more than you can say Anarchism is a betrayal of Marxism. If your entire point is that Marxist societies were not authentically Anarchist, then I am not sure why we are having this conversation. Itโs both obvious and silly.
@Cowbee
Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it's not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There's no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.
Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it's not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There's no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.
Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.
I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).
@Cowbee
I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn't been given a proper chance so it's impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of...
I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn't been given a proper chance so it's impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of...
@Cowbee
...authoritarian states that were anything but communist and all but a handful of them still exist, the rest collapsing due to various reasons.
...authoritarian states that were anything but communist and all but a handful of them still exist, the rest collapsing due to various reasons.
Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.
I believe by โLibertarian Communismโ you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marxโs descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.
Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism doesn't advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I'm not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.
Libertarian Communism doesn't advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I'm not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.
@Cowbee
I think that authoritarianism has been tried and failed enough times to justify the rejection of authoritarianism.
I think that authoritarianism has been tried and failed enough times to justify the rejection of authoritarianism.
El Arzobispo d'Eppaรฑa@Radical_EgoCom @Cowbee
I am sorry to disagree. Authoritarianism has been very successful during history. It is a very stable system because it is based on the widespread use of repression and force. And that's why we need to be vigilant.
I am sorry to disagree. Authoritarianism has been very successful during history. It is a very stable system because it is based on the widespread use of repression and force. And that's why we need to be vigilant.
@daniperezcalero @Cowbee
I was referring to the use of authoritarianism in achieving communism, which it has historically been very unsuccessful at.
I was referring to the use of authoritarianism in achieving communism, which it has historically been very unsuccessful at.
@Radical_EgoCom @Cowbee
Sorry, you are right. I missed that part of your thread.
And of course, how can you have the means of production if you don't have the ownership of your own government?
Sorry, you are right. I missed that part of your thread.
And of course, how can you have the means of production if you don't have the ownership of your own government?
So whatโs the difference between Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism?
Either way, youโre being extremely vague. Communism is impossible in one country, it must be global, and as such it must be protected. What length of time is enough to suggest a Socialist state has โfailed?โ What metrics determine AES countries have โfailed?โ How quickly must they achieve global communism to be a success? These are rhetorical questions, you donโt have to answer them all, but they do point out more of your idealism, rather than materialism.
Secondly, and the question I do want an answer to, what method do you believe can succeed in a measurably more successful way? Simply stating Libertarian Communism isnโt truly sufficient, as you have already said, Libertarian Communism has never once lasted more than a couple years, in Catalonia, or in Primitive times.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism are just different titles for the same ideology.
I disagree that communism has to be globally achieved and can't be achieved in one country. If a country can create a strong enough decentralized military and has access to the necessary resources for their survival then communism can be achieved in one country.
As I've previously stated, Libertarian Communism hasn't been given a chance to be properly implemented, mostly due to the...
@Cowbee
...unpopularity of the ideology as compared to Authoritarian Communism.
...unpopularity of the ideology as compared to Authoritarian Communism.
I believe at that point you are making a semantical argument on what is considered centralized vs decentralized, and what is and isnโt a state. A fully unified army of similar power would defeat a decentralized army, which necessitates some level of democratic centralism, by which point you have a state. Additionally, how do you see abolishing money while being invaded by Capitalist neighbors, as has happened to all AES countries?
I donโt believe Anarchism is more likely to succeed than Marxism in establishing Communism.
@Cowbee
A military being decentralized doesn't mean that it won't be fully unified. A decentralized military doesn't imply disorganization; rather, it allows for localized decision-making while still creating a cohesive unity through collective goals and voluntary cooperation.
The abolition of money would still be possible even with threats of invasion or outright invasions by capitalist governments. In fact, removing the incentive for profit-seeking and resource exploitation inherent in...
@Cowbee
...monetary systems would strengthen defense against aggression by creating genuine solidarity and more of a focus on mutual aid and collective security.
...monetary systems would strengthen defense against aggression by creating genuine solidarity and more of a focus on mutual aid and collective security.
Jeremy List@Radical_EgoCom Marx's support for labour vouchers is one of the reasons Kropotkin sometimes referred to him as a "disciple of Smith"