1d ago

TRUE communism!

Cross-posted from "TRUE communism!" by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk @lemmy.world

TRUE communism!

32 2

Political Memes @lemmy.world

TRUE communism!

128 5

38 comments

Well, that was quite entertaining.

https://eternityinview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/22te8q.gif?w=240

I understand that this is an anarchist comm, so you're free to post whatever you want, but I don't think it's productive to take a stance that fundamentally rests on misrepresenting what you're critiquing. Since you invoked my username in one of your comments here, I'd figure I'd give the Marxist stance its fair representation.
First, there is no such thing as "true communism." The obsession over purity in politics is a result of dogmatism and book workship.
Secondly, for Marxists, the stance isn't that you "do a state" and then "stop doing the state." For Marxists, not just Marxist-Leninists, the state is purely a body that resolves class contradictions through class oppression. It isn't hierarchy, and it isn't organization. Communism in the marxist conception, as a stateless society, is stateless in that once all property is collectively owned and planned, there is no class distinction. Administration remains, and is not to whither, as that's a necessary product of mass, industrialized production.
Taking that into account, the state can only disappear if all class disappears, and class cannot be abolished until all global production is collectivized. There has never been that point, you cannot have communism in one country. You can be socialist, in that public property can be the principle aspect of the economy and the state can be proletarian in character, but the state can never whither until all states are socialist, interconnected, and borders fading away into one democratic system.
Socialist countries like the PRC do rely on commodity production to engage with the global economy, as they must for the time being. They can't achieve a global system as one single country. As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character. You cannot "declare socialized production" with the stroke of a pen, it's something that must arise from development. That doesn't mean the character of an economy that is dominated by public ownership is capitalist, either, just that it is on the "socialist road," ie it is socialist, and working its way to higher levels of socialization until communism is achieved.
This is all starkly different from the anarchist position, that we can develop from the outset a decentralized, horizontalist society. I'm not going to debatelord here, this is an anarchist comm, but if you're going to misrepresent the views of Marxists, then I feel you're doing a disservice by making anarchists less prepared to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.
- It feels a bit disingenuous to hear the following:
  to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.
  I mean I got your point the other day, that I shouldn't necessarrily argue about Communistic dogma without reading all the literature, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get to that point and not just be waved away as a bad faith actor. So I was already working hard just to be told to go and read up.
  OP is using the same intensity hammer you guys got going on over there. Is it fair?
  
  I don't remember having this convo with you, so I don't have any reference for that convo. OP is misrepresenting the Marxist stance. It's one thing to critique the genuine positions Marxists have, it's another entirely to invent a strawman to argue against. The intensity of the argument isn't the problem, the illegitimacy of the argument is.
- As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character.
  When has this been achieved in communism?
  
  Cuba, USSR, PRC, etc, though these are/were socialist. Communism, in the Marxist sense (not anarchist), must be global, fully collectivized, etc, while these are examples of single states in the context of a globally capitalist-dominant system. Nevertheless, they are all examples of socialism, where as they developed as socialist countries their economies became increasingly developed and collectivized.
  The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms that set elements of the system against each other, and the PRC at one point under the Gang of Four tried to shortcut its way to communism out of a dogmatic approach to socialism, but post-reform as the PRC has been developing, it has steadily been increading the socialized character of its production. The large firms and key industries are firmly held by a proletarian state, and over time as the small and medium firms grow, these are more and more controlled by the public sector.

Man hexbear is pissed and just can't help but defend their lust for authoritarians. Then ask for left unity when we won't want to be with people who uncritically support China and North Korea.
Maybe someday hexbear will learn better but today isn't that day.
- They got so upset some of them resorted to ableism. Just astounding stuff.
  
  I've seen them using ableist slurs, i try to report them when they do.
  Such radical leftists they just use disabilities as insults.

Holy Jesus am I glad my new account is on an instance that defederated the tankie triad. Looking at this thread without logging in is something else.
- I kind of miss them. Seeing their unhinged political opinions made me feel normalish.
- This happens like clockwork whenever a meme makes fun of authcoms from a typical anarchist perspective. Always! You should see the 1000-comment salt mines of the very first such post I made.

The comments are going to be normal.

Tankies <---> Liberals. Same thing, different imperial branding.

It's almost as if corrupt sociopaths are drawn to positions of authority regardless of stated values, and a vanguard party is no exception. Church, State, HOA, offer a crumb of power and bastards will say anything they can to snatch it up. The value of an organizational system has very little to do with its aspirations, and everything to do with the obstacles it erects to obstruct corruption. Build a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the proletariat will be abandoned by the dictatorship.
- This sums up my thoughts on human behavior quite nicely. I really want to believe "true communism" is possible but I just don't see how when power-hungry assholes exist. My thoughts are that it can only happen at small scales where you know everyone in your "tribe". It's far easier to oppress nameless strangers than it is to oppress Jenny with a heart condition a sick kid.
  I'd be very interested in an honest answer about how this is handled from someone with more knowledge on communism.
  
  It's more that the user you replied to made a strawman of Marxist socialism.
  First of all, "true" communism isn't a thing, there's no such thing as a pure system and to think of purity as a requirement is to make the perfect wonderland in out heads the enemy of flawed but real progressive movements.
  Second of all, administration isn't inherently corrupting, nor is it impossible to have democracy and recall elections in case of bad actors, like socialist states have.
  Finally, the Marxist conception of communism, as a post-socialist system, can only be global, as class is only abolished when all property is collectivized and planned. A small-scale society cannot be "stateless" in the Marxist sense (though anarchism can exist, it uses different definitions of the state).
- Well said!