So the tens of millions of people that died under communism were all landlords? Wow, what are the chances of that

@Gigan @Grayox
No one died under communism because communism has never been achieved in the modern world. People died under state capitalist and state socialist authoritarian governments that people mislabel as communist because they don't know what communism is.

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.

What “core principles of Communism” 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.

There was not a new “beaurocratic class.” 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 “new class” 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 doesn’t 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.

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,...

Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. The goal of Communism is not equality! Instead, the goal is proving from everyone’s abilities to everyone’s 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.

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 “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” 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.