Gigan
๐ ๐ ๐ง
Cowbee [he/they]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?
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.
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?
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 everyoneโs abilities to everyoneโs needs.
Anti-hierarchy is not Marxist, but Anarchist.
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.
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.
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).
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...
...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.
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.
I think that authoritarianism has been tried and failed enough times to justify the rejection of authoritarianism.
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...
...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...
...monetary systems would strengthen defense against aggression by creating genuine solidarity and more of a focus on mutual aid and collective security.
Libertarian Communism can be practical at a scale required to defend a revolution from foreign defenders due to its emphasis on decentralized, community-based defense strategies that empower individuals to protect their communities collectively, which in turn creates a strong sense of solidarity and resilience against external threats.
I know that the strength of workers' movements resides in unity, not individualism. Libertarian Communism, or at least Platformism, is an ideology of ideological unity first and any individualism is within the context of the greater working-class movement. It's also important to note that the Catalonian anarchists were defeated for various reasons, including external military pressure, internal divisions, and the challenges of implementing radical social change amidst broader...
...political turmoil and counterrevolutionary forces. It's not correct to conclude that the Catalonian anarchist were defeated simply because their military was decentralized and that hierarchical organization is superior to non-hierarchical organization simply from this very narrow view of the conflict.
Of course they faced numerous other issues, my point is that it seems that by holding to their ideals over what is practicible, they opened themselves up to failure.
On theory vs practice, it is important to test theory against practice and adapt theory to fit practice. What remains beautiful in theory must be measured by its practicality.
But they didn't hold their ideals over their practicableness, and in fact that may have been the reason why they were ultimately defeated. During the Spanish Civil War, the(CNT) and (FAI) were part of the broader Republican side, which included various leftist and anti-fascist groups. While the anarchists were initially wary of collaborating with the Republican government, they did participate in the anti-fascist coalition and the Republican government in Catalonia, known as the...
...Generalitat. However, the relationship between the anarchists and the Republican government was complex and often strained. The anarchists sought to maintain their autonomy and implement their vision of a decentralized, self-managed society, which sometimes clashed with the goals and methods of the Republican authorities. There were instances of collaboration, such as the participation of anarchists in the government and the militia forces, but there were also conflicts and...
...disagreements over issues such as the militarization of the militias and the centralization of power. It is completely possible that had the organization of the military been unified in a decentralized way they would not have been defeated.
I haven't based a single thing on idealism or "vibes". I examined the historical events and inferred a logical conclusion based on the facts, and the facts are that ideological unity was indeed lacking and necessary among the Spanish Revolutionaries, but nothing suggests that their unity had to be based on hierarchy and centralized planning, nor does anything suggest that the CNT-FIA's methods of the organization were inferior simply because they lost because other traditionally...
...hierarchical Spanish military groups also lost to the fascist as well, including the Spanish Marxist backed by the Soviet Union.
I never said ideas create reality, however, I do believe that ideas can shape reality through the actions of those who hold those ideas, and I completely agree with the concept of unity through organization, again, never stating the contrary.
Hierarchy is a bad thing as it perpetuates inequality and oppression by allowing certain people to have more power than others. Not only would a system where power is decentralized be better in terms of eliminating inequality and oppression, but such a system would be more in line with communism's goal of creating a classless society.
Hierarchy does not perpetuate inequality, accumulation does. Hierarchy without accumulation and democratically accountable does not perpetuate inequality.
A decentralized system is not necessarily better at addressing systems of inequality or oppression.
Decentralized or Centralized makes no difference on creating a classless society.
Hierarchy is the accumulation of power in the hands of a select minority of people. Even if there are safeguards to prevent too much power going to the top there will still always be an accumulation of power at the top of the hierarchy, thereby creating an inequality of power amongst the population. The only way to not have inequality of any kind is to get rid of hierarchy.
Hierarchy is not an accumulation of power, but authority vested in individuals. Democratically accountable, there isnโt anything inherently wrong with it.
Additionally, inequality is not an enemy of Communism. Communism is about providing for everyone and giving everyone a dignified life, not about making everyone equal. โFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needsโ inherently accepts inequality of circumstances and outcomes as acceptable as long as everyoneโs needs are met, which is impossible in the contradiction of Capitalism.
I'm not able to take anything you say seriously. First, you claim that individuals having authority over others isn't an accumulation of power even though a person with authority would have to have power over others to have authority over them, and then you claim that communism is compatible with inequality, which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard a communist claim. You sound like a revisionist.
Accumulation means increasing, it does not mean static power vested democratically. Capitalists accumulate via an endless cycle of M-C-Mโ, which in turn swallows everything else. Elected representatives can be recalled, and even if they never are, they do not infinitely profit off the labor of others.
Please explain how โFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needsโ implies the goal is equality, and not satisfying the needs of everyone. Equality is idealist, satisfying needs is materialist. Marx explains precisely what he means:
โBut one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only โ for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but lifeโs prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly โ only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!โ
If anything, you are the revisionist, promoting half of Critique of the Gotha Programme and rejecting the half that isnโt Anarchism-friendly.