Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns thereās more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian ācommunismā as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. Theyāre pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didnāt believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very āleftā leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, Iām not even a communist, Iām just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didnāt stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that wonāt ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. Thatās why every single Marxist attempt that hasnāt failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes weāve seen arenāt coincidences, theyāre an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when itās implemented down to the letterā¦ and it aināt pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isnāt some secret, itās pretty well documented.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings arenāt some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise donāt waste my time.
Okay then tell me, what have you actually read by the guy? Everything youāve said just tells that at best you skimmed the Communist Manifesto without the patience or curiosity to understand why Marx wrote it and the context under which it was written. You seem so ready and willing to casually dismiss him even though his work is foundational to much of modern sociology right alongside Max Weber.
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, āCapitalist Institutionsā being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being āauthoritarianā is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase āiron fistā is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase āby any means necessary,ā itās just fearmongering.
Actually realize communism
Sure, this is correct.
Since step 3 is a utopia that wonāt ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two.
Thatās unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isnāt an impossibility but it also isnāt a utopia like you claim. Itās certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Thatās why every single Marxist attempt that hasnāt failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government ādecidingā to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
All the tyrannical regimes weāve seen arenāt coincidences, theyāre an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when itās implemented down to the letterā¦ and it aināt pretty.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between ātyrannicalā and āfair and democratic?ā Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isnāt some secret, itās pretty well documented.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them āwhy are you hitting yourselfā. No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy itās functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasnāt, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people arenāt Marxists.
Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but itās a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. Thatās not a billionaire, thatās an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people arenāt going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You canāt just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. Thatās if they cooperate, what if they donāt? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well itās simple, if they resist then theyāre counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Thirdly, āCapitalist Institutionsā being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in itās own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the ārepressiveā institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the āideologicalā institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because thatās what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way thatās possible is via direct democracy but thatās not feasible in any society thatās not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because thatās the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by itās nature, itās safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America.
That is not what is found in America. If youāre trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if youāre trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then youāre off the rails.
The idea of it being āauthoritarianā is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isnāt democracy, thatās tyranny.
The phrase āiron fistā is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase āby any means necessary,ā itās just fearmongering.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because youāre a Marxist doesnāt invalidate their use here.
Thatās unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isnāt an impossibility but it also isnāt a utopia like you claim. Itās certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where thereās no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias arenāt realistic you canāt have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. Thereās a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You canāt run societies off of fantasies.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government ādecidingā to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and itās institutionsā¦ and that doesnāt happen. Governments donāt give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and āwither awayā. Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce itās laws, courts to uphold itās laws, the military to protect it, itās own media to promote it, and so on.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between ātyrannicalā and āfair and democratic?ā Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Ah yes, weāre running socities based off of vibes. Iām sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments donāt exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there werenāt it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
This doesnāt disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasnāt just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them āwhy are you hitting yourselfā. No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy itās functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasnāt, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people arenāt Marxists.
Marxism is not destroying a system, but replacing it and moving beyond. Capitalism is failing and continues to see increased disparity over time.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but itās a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. Thatās not a billionaire, thatās an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people arenāt going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You canāt just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. Thatās if they cooperate, what if they donāt? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well itās simple, if they resist then theyāre counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Petite bourgeoisie have more to gain under Socialism than they would under Capitalism, typically. Secondly, managing to be a lawyer with a firm is not simply āa good choice,ā it takes luck and a safety net that allows for that. The idea that most people would opt out of Socialism is historically inaccurate as well. All in all, youāre deeply goofy here.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in itās own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the ārepressiveā institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the āideologicalā institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because thatās what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
Youāre inserting your own conclusions here, yet again. These instutitions would be removed or replaced, sure, but not firebombed. You can see historical Marxist revolutions to know that wasnāt accurate.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way thatās possible is via direct democracy but thatās not feasible in any society thatās not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Representative democracy is still democracy, I cannot believe you are genuinely suggesting otherwise.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because thatās the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by itās nature, itās safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
Oh, more historical inaccuracy. Marxist revolutions have been because of civil unrest, which is why they were supported by the mahority of people. Secondly, youāre asserting that a party cannot be controlled democratically by the general public, and that the general public cannot enter the party, which is also wrong.
That is not what is found in America. If youāre trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if youāre trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then youāre off the rails.
America is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise as described by Marx. The state is run by parties that are nearly entirely funded by wealthy Capitalists, with media funded by wealthy Capitalists that manufacture consent in the general public. This is basic Marxism here, not understanding what Marx meant has been a core issue with your entire argument.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isnāt democracy, thatās tyrann
Democratic for the people. Owning stocks doesnāt make you bourgeois, neither does owning your home. Petite bourgeoisie are suppressed by larger bourgeoisie into the proletariat.
Secondly, the idea that the average worker with a 401k would be upset to not have to worry about saving for retirement ever again, with higher wages and free healthcare, education, and shorter work weeks is silly.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because youāre a Marxist doesnāt invalidate their use here.
āItās accurate because I say it is.ā
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where thereās no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias arenāt realistic you canāt have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. Thereās a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You canāt run societies off of fantasies.
Youāre certainly adding on a lot of shit that Communists have never suggested. Communism would have scarcity, public property, disagreements on ideas, and more. Youāre correct in saying it would no longer have the oppressive elements of the state, nor would it have Money or classes, but the way that works is via tracking labor inputs and outputs. Marx makes it pretty clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme. You added on a bunch of unsupported baggage and said your fantasy version of a proposed society canāt exist.
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and itās institutionsā¦ and that doesnāt happen. Governments donāt give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and āwither awayā. Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce itās laws, courts to uphold itās laws, the military to protect it, itās own media to promote it, and so on.
No, government does not need to actively work on dismantling their institutions. Withering away does not mean the government eating parts of itself. Redundant systems get phased out over time in the modern day all the time. Communism would have police, courts, and so forth as well.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isnāt communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that arenāt the owning class tooā¦ What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But thereās scale and scope as well; the American govāt, by and large, hasnāt been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents donāt tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We donāt arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We havenāt had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Iām not sure you know what Marxism or Fascism areā¦ I think you just think everyone who doesnāt think like you is pure evil.
Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns thereās more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian ācommunismā as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. Theyāre pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didnāt believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very āleftā leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, Iām not even a communist, Iām just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didnāt stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that wonāt ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. Thatās why every single Marxist attempt that hasnāt failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes weāve seen arenāt coincidences, theyāre an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when itās implemented down to the letterā¦ and it aināt pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isnāt some secret, itās pretty well documented.
Itās painfully obvious youāve never really engaged with Marxās writings.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings arenāt some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise donāt waste my time.
Okay then tell me, what have you actually read by the guy? Everything youāve said just tells that at best you skimmed the Communist Manifesto without the patience or curiosity to understand why Marx wrote it and the context under which it was written. You seem so ready and willing to casually dismiss him even though his work is foundational to much of modern sociology right alongside Max Weber.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, āCapitalist Institutionsā being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being āauthoritarianā is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase āiron fistā is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase āby any means necessary,ā itās just fearmongering.
Sure, this is correct.
Thatās unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isnāt an impossibility but it also isnāt a utopia like you claim. Itās certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government ādecidingā to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between ātyrannicalā and āfair and democratic?ā Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them āwhy are you hitting yourselfā. No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy itās functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasnāt, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people arenāt Marxists.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but itās a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. Thatās not a billionaire, thatās an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people arenāt going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You canāt just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. Thatās if they cooperate, what if they donāt? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well itās simple, if they resist then theyāre counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in itās own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the ārepressiveā institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the āideologicalā institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because thatās what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way thatās possible is via direct democracy but thatās not feasible in any society thatās not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because thatās the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by itās nature, itās safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
That is not what is found in America. If youāre trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if youāre trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then youāre off the rails.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isnāt democracy, thatās tyranny.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because youāre a Marxist doesnāt invalidate their use here.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where thereās no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias arenāt realistic you canāt have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. Thereās a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You canāt run societies off of fantasies.
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and itās institutionsā¦ and that doesnāt happen. Governments donāt give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and āwither awayā. Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce itās laws, courts to uphold itās laws, the military to protect it, itās own media to promote it, and so on.
Ah yes, weāre running socities based off of vibes. Iām sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments donāt exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there werenāt it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
This doesnāt disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasnāt just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.
Marxism is not destroying a system, but replacing it and moving beyond. Capitalism is failing and continues to see increased disparity over time.
Petite bourgeoisie have more to gain under Socialism than they would under Capitalism, typically. Secondly, managing to be a lawyer with a firm is not simply āa good choice,ā it takes luck and a safety net that allows for that. The idea that most people would opt out of Socialism is historically inaccurate as well. All in all, youāre deeply goofy here.
Youāre inserting your own conclusions here, yet again. These instutitions would be removed or replaced, sure, but not firebombed. You can see historical Marxist revolutions to know that wasnāt accurate.
Representative democracy is still democracy, I cannot believe you are genuinely suggesting otherwise.
Oh, more historical inaccuracy. Marxist revolutions have been because of civil unrest, which is why they were supported by the mahority of people. Secondly, youāre asserting that a party cannot be controlled democratically by the general public, and that the general public cannot enter the party, which is also wrong.
America is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise as described by Marx. The state is run by parties that are nearly entirely funded by wealthy Capitalists, with media funded by wealthy Capitalists that manufacture consent in the general public. This is basic Marxism here, not understanding what Marx meant has been a core issue with your entire argument.
Democratic for the people. Owning stocks doesnāt make you bourgeois, neither does owning your home. Petite bourgeoisie are suppressed by larger bourgeoisie into the proletariat.
Secondly, the idea that the average worker with a 401k would be upset to not have to worry about saving for retirement ever again, with higher wages and free healthcare, education, and shorter work weeks is silly.
āItās accurate because I say it is.ā
Youāre certainly adding on a lot of shit that Communists have never suggested. Communism would have scarcity, public property, disagreements on ideas, and more. Youāre correct in saying it would no longer have the oppressive elements of the state, nor would it have Money or classes, but the way that works is via tracking labor inputs and outputs. Marx makes it pretty clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme. You added on a bunch of unsupported baggage and said your fantasy version of a proposed society canāt exist.
No, government does not need to actively work on dismantling their institutions. Withering away does not mean the government eating parts of itself. Redundant systems get phased out over time in the modern day all the time. Communism would have police, courts, and so forth as well.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isnāt communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that arenāt the owning class tooā¦ What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But thereās scale and scope as well; the American govāt, by and large, hasnāt been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents donāt tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We donāt arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We havenāt had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Yesā¦ No argument with that part.