this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
437 points (96.2% liked)
Communism
1644 readers
285 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Marx's critique of capitalism is spot on. It's his proposed solution that is problematic
Why?
I'm not well read in Marxism so I'm probably not qualified to answer this, but the recurring issue with Communism seems to be the same as capitalism, in that it requires people to not be assholes in order to properly function.
What part of Communism "requires people to not be assholes to function?"
Why do you think Capitalism would function if people were not assholes?
The recurring issue with Communism in practice is that it requires true equality amongst its citizens and there's always some asshole or group of assholes who want power and dominion over others, so it seems to repeatedly fall into a practical dictatorship.
Capitalism at its best requires businesses to find and deploy the most effective and efficient means of product delivery in order to compete with each other, which means that the consumer will always have the best product at the best price allowed by the market. The problem is that greedy assholes either conglomerate competing companies into monopolies, or otherwise collude with one another to maximize their profit margins.
Why does Communism require "true equality amongst its citizens?" What does that even mean, in practical terms? How would a group of people take advantage of this to form a "practical dictatorship?"
Capitalism does not deploy the most efficient means of product delivery, but the most profitable. It means weaker but more profitable products are pushed, and rampant consumerism of useless trinkets is pushed for profit. Collusion and monopoly are not why Capitalism cannot work, those are merely symptoms of a broader exploitative system that naturally decays due to issues like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
What of Marx have you read? Or any leftist theorist? I can make some suggestions for reading material if you wish.
Do you imagine a communist system that has social classes?
Castro, Zedong, Putin
You're arguing Communism on a philosophical level against capitalism on a practical level.
As I said, I'm not well read and unprepared for the higher level argument you are seeking here.
I appreciate your desire to educate, but I'm too busy being exploited by the current system to dive further into social philosophy. When you guys are ready to rise up I'll be there, but I won't be a part of the debate on which system we should implement going forward.
If you are referring to the Marxian term, ie proletarians, bourgeois, etc. Of course not. Do you instead mean people must be paid equally, and there can be no management? Also of course not, Communism isn't a bunch of horizontal organization and equal pay.
Putin is a Capitalist, so I am unsure of what you mean by including him here.
As for Mao and Castro, Mao lost power within the CPC over time and Castro retained power democratically, neither of which maintain your points. This appears to just be vibes.
What on Earth does that mean? I am advocating for Communism on both practical and philosophical grounds, this is just gibberish.
I am trying to get to a base level of understanding so we can have a conversation. I wouldn't even call it an argument, I am just trying to get you to understand your own preconceptions.
Revolution doesn't happen just because people vibe it into existence, it's a consequence of deteriorating Material Conditions. If you don't have time to read Marx, why do you have time to discuss Marxism online with strangers? This entire convo would have been better spent comprehending the bigger picture of Marxism.
https://www.mlreadinghub.org/study-materials/reading-list
All transitions to a new system are temporarily vulnerable to becoming one party, or one person dictatorships.
(there's a video on YouTube called "rules for rulers" that explains this more).
It is not game theoretically aligned. It's not his fault, Game Theory didn't really get going until after his death
Yes, Matpat will save Marxism.
No, seriously, what problems does Marxism have, and how does Game Theory "solve" them or point them out?
There are different kinds of work which needs to be done for our society to function. These tasks have costs for those who perform them (lost time, spent energy, danger, boredom, etc).
In pure communism, everyone works hard and everyone is given the spoils of the work we collectively provide. But it is rational for any individual to not work as hard, because he will bear less of the cost of that work, but still realize the same gain
Therefore most people tend to shirk their duties, and the output of the entire collective drops. In order to maintain the system, the threat of violence is introduced, and we quickly get to Stalinist purges
Ah, vibes-based analysis that ignores all of Marxist theory on how a transition to Communism would work, and just vibes out how it would be. Nice.
What I described is exactly how it played out in about a dozen instances where a transition to communism was tried
Has it? Has it truly?
Your argument can be made against all forms of social services, and ignores that people work to get paid. This hasn't panned out in your game theory favor at all.
If you're trying to argue against higher stage Communism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs," then that also doesn't follow. Higher stage Communism has never been achieved by any AES country, so again, your example is false.
In no reading of your statement does it follow reality.
How about instead of just saying that I am wrong, describe to me how an individual in a higher stage communist state would be prevented from slacking in his duties (and still gaining "according to his need") without state induced violence
Do you think Communists believe upper-stage Communism can be achieved in our life time? No, it is only achievable after rapidly improving production. Communists advocate for naturally building up to that point through steady improvements and collectivizing production through Socialism, then lower stage Communism, then finally upper stage Communism.
Another thing - an upper stage Communist society would be both international and stateless. You're arguing against Anarcho-Communism, and poorly as well, not Marxism.
You're still not answering my question.
But it's now clear that communism for you is a religion. Upper stage communism is the paradise that is promised to those who follow the tenets of the faith fully, and I am a heretic non-believer
I will not be continuing this discussion any further
What specifically have I not answered?
Communism is not a religion, it's a process of collectivizing property and improving production so as to produce based on the needs of society rather than profit.
You seem to be arguing against a vague abstraction well into the future as though it has already been tried, which is why you said it "happened in the dozen or so times it has been tried."
I don't really think it can placed as a comparative argument, because under capitalism it's more or less the exact same. Either you work or starve/jail.
For a more wholehearted answer. Under each ideology there is a perfect citizen for each of them. Any one ideology will fail in real life. Providing a rouge actor doesn't disprove the ideology. Almost each country implements some aspect of each ideology in order to run smoothly.
Problem arises when a lot of people under capitalism feels left out, because only ruthless capitalism is rewarded. They try to find their communities online and now we are here. I'm almost certain that people here could create a functioning communist state. But you can't create one, when people who are born in one are already part of it.
My main issue with it is that it is not evidence based but that the development of the target socially is speculative It's incredibly hard to predict such development and Marx didn't have the tools to do it properly.
What do you mean?
You expect serious analysis from someone posting that comment in a communism community?
No, I expect deeply unserious analysis, I just like trying to lead these people to theory. Doesn't work all the time, obviously, but it does work sometimes.
All I see is you being toxic. You're not leading people anywhere. People will want to stay away from your way of thinking because of all the hatred in your tone. Dial it down a bit if you want to have any impact.
Where is the hatred? I was just asking for the base reasoning for their assertions, as they were unsupported.
People should be able to enumerate the benefits of their preferred form of governance. They should also be able to be honest about its weaknesses and have a discussion about past failures.
I think Socialists should be like really good sales people, not just trying to get a quick sale, but trying to convert you to a lifelong happy customer. Provide the talking points and let people decide for themselves.
Sure. It’s also worthwhile to recognize trolls and not reward their bad-faith posting by interacting with them.
This is the correct answer. Anyone that disagrees should go read the communist manifesto and come back to see if they still disagree.
The issues are with his solutions. He correctly calls out all the issues with capitalism. Just nails them.
But his ideas about how to solve it by abolishing land rights and the entire inheritance system is problematic, as the OP says.
Not that it couldn't work in a vacuum, but it's not a realistic solution to our problem.
A much more well considered approach of proposed solutions can be found in the book: Utopia for realists.
The Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet written within the context of Marx's time, and the Material Conditions that came with them. They were not meant to be the solution, but a solution, and for his time period.
Reading the Communist Manifesto as a means to say Marx's ideas are problematic by stripping them from their context and slapping them onto modern times is a disservice to Marxism.
Marxism is a frame of analysis, a philosophical method via Dialectical Materialism, and a tool for looking at how to improve whatever situation you are in. As such, further reading of Marx beyond the Manifesto is a requirement to understand what Marxists of today advocate for.