Cowbee

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

This is a remote user, information on this page may be incomplete. View at Source ↗

⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Has the USA turned into an oligarchy?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
The USA has always and forever represented the will of the Bourgeoisie. The issue we are seeing now is further and further separation between the Proletariat and a smaller and smaller concentration of the Bourgeoisie due to Capitalism’s centralizing nature. The silver lining is that this same centralizing process makes Socialism even easier to implement once the Proletariat siezes control, as these large intricate networks have already developed their own infrastructure for planning that can be folded into the Public Sector, the hard part is getting over that threshold of power.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Frankly, this is wrong. I am not trying to be rude here, so please don’t take it that way, but as you admitted in the original post you aren’t very informed on this subject to begin with. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend reading my top-level reply to this thread as well.

First, to get the obvious sticker out of the way, the Russian Federation is undeniably Capitalist, Socialism was dissolved and the former state was sliced up and sold for parts at garage sale prices to wealthy Capitalists. The USSR was dissolved in the early 1990s, 3 decades ago, and with it the Socialist economy was also dissolved. An estimated 7 million people died due to the sudden destruction of the economy and the utter crumbling of previously government provided services, like free healthcare and education, a process known as “Shock Doctrine.”

Secondly, Fascism and Communism. You really need to read the book I recommended, Dr. Michael Parenti has an easy to read writing style packed with wit and rigorous historical analysis, however I will respond as best I can to the points you yourself brought up.

It is correct that both Fascism and Communism have an “in-group” and an “out-group,” but if you don’t actually see which group is represented and which group is oppressed by which system, you come to false conclusions. Fascism’s in-group is undeniably the national bourgeoisie, the Capital owners that profited immensely off of the various fascist movements, such as Ford, Hugo Boss, Krupp, many of which exist to this day in some form. The out-group is also undeniably the proletariat, the working class. Often times, somewhat due to the Nietzchian influence, ethnic groups such as Jewish peoples and Slavic peoples were targeted, along with any organized members of the working class, especially Communists. Fascism is a sort of “immune system” for Capitalism.

What about Comminism? Well, it’s the exact opposite. Communist movements have historically come from the Proletariat (as well as the peasantry, especially in China where there wasn’t a large Proletariat at the time of its revolution), and have served the Proletariat greatly. The oppressed class is the Bourgeoisie. What this historically has translated to is AES states (or “Actually Existing Socialism”) working towards huge literacy programs, massive education expansion, rapid industrialization, and generous social services. The USSR, for example, provided completely free healthcare and education, and had lower retirement ages than the United States, the social safety net actually inspired FDR’s New Deal as a means to prevent revolution within the United States during the Great Depression.

Moreover, the USSR and the Nazis saw the vast majority of the fighting in WWII. 80% of Nazi deaths came from the Eastern Front, it was the strategy of the West to let both the Nazis and the Communists fight it out and grind each other to a pulp. Truman spoke this of the strategy:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Ultimately, the real issue here is trying to dress up a massive difference as a small one, and using it to equate two polar opposites. Again, I highly encourage you to read the top level comment. No, AES states are not and have never been perfect, but they have also been in no way shape or form comparable to fascist states, in who they serve or how they functioned, and to equate them is a massive error.

Let me know if you have any questions!
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
The state is fundamentally a tool of class oppression. Such aspects would include private property rights, and other enshrinements of class distinctions, which are gradually erased as property is collectivized. Additionally, aspects like policing would transform to be more akin to social workers as the economic reasons for crime would be dramatically minimized, things like that.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Engels calls it “the Administration of Things,” I’d call it government. Really, the heart of the matter is that many people think Marx was advocating for decentralization, which does not logically follow from the rest of Marxism advocating for central planning and whatnot, leading to a weird misconception of a lot of cebtralization and somehow dissolving, which is evidently false.

We can think of it as a “State” remaining as long as we recontextualize what that means with respect to Marxism, the modern colloquial sense of a State would remain in an altered form is all.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
No, what you say isn’t true at all, nor are you speaking in real terms but vibes. You’re historically wrong and sociologically wrong.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Not necessarily, this is extremely oversimplified.

First, Marxists advocate for building Dual Power, ie an existing “second government” to take the place of the first.

Second, Humans don’t “crave power.” Humans work towards their own self-interest, but this alone doesn’t translate to “power.”
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Revolution is required to bring it about. You can observe the various successes and struggles faced by existing Socialist societies and historical Socialist societies to see what has worked and what hasn’t quite worked for how to organize it.

Moreover, every system is going to be susceptible to corruption and greed, Socialism would be more resiliant against it due to focusing production on fulfilling needs, rather than profits as a rule.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Sure, I’ll take a crack at these!

For your first question, we have to question what it would mean to revert from full Public Ownership to some kind of Private Ownership. Such a method would require a revolution, to change hands from the global population to an elite few, but how would they do that? Communism is international, there’s little need for an army at all at that point, and police would be replaced largely by social workers. Such an upbeaval of the status quo would require a massive upset.

If you mean from within the system, ie slowly boil the frog and peacefully remove all democracy, I would ask you to explain how that would happen given the democratic forces at play and overall economic basis being one requiring everyone in society to be able to participate to their fullest extent, as well as why, when such a system would be at relative abundance.

At earlier stages in development, ie Socialism, sort of? However, I reiterate, planning is not a class, it’s a form of labor.

For your second question, I suppose I would say yes, Marxists don’t believe Communism to be the “end.” However, it is unlikely that such a system would move in favor of decentralization, as decentralization removes democratic input and paves the way for competition and markets to resurface into Capitalism. Engels’ work Anti-Duhring is centered on such a concept, though it isn’t on my reading list.

As for whether or not humanity will eventually move into a more Anarchist style, there’s little to suggest so far that mass, complex industry will simplify itself to where there is a total reversion from full public Ownership and central planning to incredibly simplified individual ownership and planning. I won’t say it’s impossible, but new analysis within Communism would have to observe its trends and predict the next phase of society to be based on atomization and individualism, rather than mass cooperation.

Marx never “decided” that Socialism was good so it should happen, rather, Capitalism’s natural tendency to centralize and teach society how to scale industry further and further and plan it meant Socialism was the next logical step. Such analysis would have to be done again, within Communism, and observe such phenomena to make it valid analysis.

Hope that helps!
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
No problem, thanks for asking! 🙂

One thing I think you’re misreading is the State withering away. What we commonly think of as the “State,” ie the entire public sector, government, administration, etc is not the same as what Marx calls the State. For Marx, the State is the elements of Government that contribute to Class oppression.

Before we can continue, we need to know what a “class” even is to begin with. Elsewhere in this thread, people make reference to something like a “planner class,” but for Marx, no such thing exists. Rather, Classes are social relations with respect to ownership of the Means of Production and interaction with it. “Plumbers” are not a class, just like “managers” are not a class. The reason this is important, is because a classless society is one that holds all of the Means of Production in Common. In other words, full Public Ownership.

Circling back to the State, how does it “wither away?” The answer is that the Proletarian state, one dominated by the Proletariat and not the Bourgeoisie, gradually wrests from the Bourgeoisie its Capital with respect to the degree that it has developed. A Socialist revolution would not turn everything into Public Property instantly, markets and Capitalists would remain until the industries they govern develop enough that Public Ownership becomes more efficient and markets stagnate, ie monopolist phases where competition has run dry.

Since this is a gradual process, imagine every bit of Private Property wrested chips away at the State. The second Private Property reaches 0% and Public Property reaches 100%, there are no longer any classes, and thus no class to oppress. The “State” disappears, leaving only government, administration, and more behind.

As for the structural makeup of the socialist government, it would be most likely made up of “rungs,” a local rung, a regional rung with representatives from each local rung, a provincial, national, international, etc rung, as many as needed and as few as necessary for proper Central Planning. What you describe as people being able to just “take advantage” of that could happen, Communism isn’t some utopia of perfection, but such a society is far more resiliant and more importantly builds up over time in a realistic manner.

Does that answer your question? Feel free to read from the reading list I linked earlier, also linked on my profile!
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
That’s fair! Marxists are most commonly found on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net. Lemmy.world skews very liberal and is defederated from the latter 2, so as a consequence asking on Lemmy.world gets a very oversimplified view of Marxism.

If you want to learn about Marxism, you can check my reading list linked in my top level comment or on my profile.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Not written out, as far as I’m aware. Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than Lemmy.world, however, so it can cast a wider net. Perhaps asking on c/socialism or c/communism would be a good bet for OP. Per your question, though, it really is just found out either by checking each instance or feeling it out if it isn’t explicitly stated.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Ah, fair enough! This is Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, one of the best introductions to the philosophical aspects of Marxism in my opinion.

As for your point, public ownership and central planning requires infrastructure to direct production and people/algorithms to fulfil those roles (not getting into Cybernetics at this point as that’s another can of worms). All Communists espouse democratic values, usually in the form of “units” that elect representatives from within themselves to a higher unit, in a ladder approach, with instant recall elections available as a countermeasure. Furthermore, the concepts of Democratic Centralism and the Mass Line are critical for Marxist organizational theory.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Communism is democratic, yes. This can have multiple parties, but generally having different parties is not the same as having democratic control. It’s arguably more important to be able to vote on what you want, or who you want to do it, within an existing party or party-less system. As an example, among a local council, rather than voting on a party, it makes more sense to vote on which representative from said council will participate in the regional council, not necessarily which party.

Secondly, again, you are confusing a “State” in the Marxist sense, ie the elements of government that denote class distinctions (private property rights, as an example) with the colloquial sense of the word “State,” which is largely synonymous with government. Communism would have a government, complete with elections and representatives, without a state, hence me bolding Engels when he says "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production." You cannot direct the processes of production without, you know, directing production.

Moreover, corruption likely will never fully go away, but it will be minimized over time, certainly in comparison to modern Capitalism, and even early Socialism. Communism isn’t some Utopia free from any worry or problem, and Marxists are the first to point this out.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
In all likelihood, a mixture of both! The concept of “Cybernetics”, or productive control systems being applied to a centrally planned economy, has been an aspect of Marxism for centuries. Here’s another interesting article on calculating prices in a planned economy.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
First, there’s no such thing as a “planning class.” Managers within Capitalist businesses are still Proletarian, planning is just a different form of labor. Such a distinction would mean that “plumber” is a class, as well as “doctor.” What determines a class isn’t the form of labor, but the relation to ownership, and in a fully Publicly Owned economy the planners are not the owners.

Secondly, there are checks on elected officials, I am not sure at all where you are getting the notion that there are none. Recall elections have been a core aspect of Marxist theory of organization since near the beginning, as well as concepts such as Democratic Centralism.

“Common people” are not distinct from “planners,” nor would the “Common people” be able to do away with the concept of planners and management. Again, from Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

It’s not that Communist theory “never answered” your questions, its that nobody that is familiar with Communist theory would raise such questions as they don’t make any sense in context. Does that make sense?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
That’s the Anarchist critique of Marxism in its barest and simplest form, to be sure. I don’t generally agree with this, though, such a statement ignores material democratic structures and methods of ensuring accountability.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
In the colloquial sense, yes, hence the widespread misundertanding of Marxism among those who haven’t read him. For Marx, though, organization and hierarchy aren’t a problem in classless society, and are rather essential tools to provide for all.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Central Planners, elected officials, managers, etc. Similar to how it is done in the government already in Capitalist nations like the Post Office. Communism would have a government, just not a “state” as Marx outlined it.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, Communism and Fascism have historically been entirely different and equating them is not really justified.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
You’re a bit confused about the Marxist notion of the State, understandably if you aren’t a Marxist. For Marx, the state is the aspect of government that entrenches and enforces class distinctions, ergo once all property is public there are no classes, and thus no state, despite a government remaining. Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Additionally, money can only be abolished once an economy has fully socialized, at no point in the USSR’s history was that feasible. They even tried to move to a labor voucher system, but lacked the computerized means to make it truly practical.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Vanguards are never supposed to “give up” power. The State isn’t the same as government, for Marx. The State is an instrument of class oppression, once all property is in the public sector there ceases to be classes, and thus the elements of government upholding class distinctions cease to have a purpose and “whither away.” Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
There are a few key misconceptions here.

MLs do not take the stance that you need to go through “State Capitalism.” The State playing a role in Markets a la the NEP is still considered a Socialist state even if production isn’t socialized, but this isn’t 100% necessary though it is beneficial in underdeveloped sectors.

Secondly, Communism for Marxists looks like full Public Ownership and Central Planning in a worldwide republic. The State for Marx was the aspect of society that enforced class distinctions, so upon reaching full Public Ownership, even with a government, there is no “State” in the Marxist convention. Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Finally, the CPC considers China to be Socialist already. The 2050 metric is to be a “great, developed Socialist nation.” The CPC subscribes to the stageist theory of Socialism whereby each phase in Socialism has unique characteristics, not that they are not yet Socialist.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Kind of. Marx’s theory of the State was about Class Oppression, when you eliminate Class there isn’t really a State for Marx, ergo full Public Ownership and Central Planning is considered Communist. You are more referring to Anarchism.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
This isn’t actually true. AES states are Socialist, the concept of “State Capitalism” refered more to the NEP period. Communism is always meant to be based on Public Ownership and Central Planning, because Marx observed Capitalism’s natural tendencies to centralize and develop intricate internal planning mechanisms.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Regardless of your opinions on the successes or failures of AES, they were and are very much in line with the Marxist notion of Socialism.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Communism, for Marxists, would look like a Worldwide Republic with full Public Ownership and Central Planning. The issue you are runnung into is Marxist definition of the State. For Marxists, the State is an instrument of Class oppression. When you eliminate Classes, you so eliminate the State. Administration, planning, legal networks, etc would still exist without what Marx considered a “State” to be. Moreover, this is the fundamental difference between what Marxists want and what Anarchists want. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

The reason it isn’t instantaneous is because Marx and Engels believed Private Property could only truly be folded into the Public Sector once it had developed enough to be easily planned, and this happens at different rates across different industries, and to different degrees.

I highly recommend checking out my Introductory Marxist Reading List if you want to learn more, but feel free to ask any questions!
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Communism⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
This isn’t correct, at least not with respect to Marxism. The Marxist theory of the State is not the same as the Anarchist theory of the State, Marxists see it as an instrument of Class oppression and Anarchists see it as an institution of hierarchy and a monopoly on violence. This means for Marxists, a fully publicly owned, centrally planned world republic is “stateless” as there are no classes, while for Anarchists it would look more like a horizontal spiderweb network of communes.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨China's internet is upset that a knock-off of its darling video game, 'Black Myth: Wukong,' is listed on Nintendo's store⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
The ones designing the vast majority of IP are paid in wages, the ones who own the IP have not actually designed it, or played a minimal role, ie outlining what they want designed. Copyright is something that is truly unnecessary in general, it is at its best when protecting the vast minority of small producers who own their own designs and can actually afford to manufacture and sell them, but the bulk of the economy is not at all organized in such a fashion to begin with.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Imperialism, authoritarianism and oppression is bad all around m'kay⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Equating all bad as simply “bad” regardless of context, intensity, direction, and more is a privledged western position that seeks to undermine liberatory movements and entrenches the status quo. The status quo may be “bad,” but by your analysis so it overturning the status quo. This is the kind of moralism that was used against the Civil Rights Movement, Palestinian Liberation, anti-slavery movements, and more.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Imperialism, authoritarianism and oppression is bad all around m'kay⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Again, your moral equivalence results in standing back and watching Palestine be erased from the map. Equal condemnation for unequal evils minimizes the worse and raises the lesser evil.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Imperialism, authoritarianism and oppression is bad all around m'kay⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I just showed you the consequence of your framing, correct? The goal isn’t to excuse anything, but to come to correct conclusions. Your line of thinking supports the genocide of Palestinians, because it becomes a toothless “both sides bad,” resulting in “continue the course.” It’s the equivalent of coming out and saying “cancer is bad,” it doesn’t change anything.