you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The people invested in its spread--often the same ones who loudly cry "real Communism hasn't been tried yet"

I think these people tend to mean that Marxism wasn't taken to its conclusion. They are wrong that this could work any differently than we saw it play out in USSR, China, and Cuba, but not wrong about their being forms of Communism that aren't well tested that are quite different.

The rival Communist theorist to Marx was named Kropotkin, but he lost the popularity battle. He did not want a centralized state communism at all, he wanted a decentralized and libertarian Communism. I harbor some doubts about the viability of this ideology, but it does exist. Something like this was attempted in Spanish Catalonia from 1936-1939. George Orwell actually fought for them against the Spanish Government, but they were crushed.

Oh, and the Chinese are special, haven't you seen or heard how many people bend over backwards to avoid upsetting on them certain issues, like the status of Taiwan? Or its absorption of Tibet, or how it walked back the various promises made in regards to Hong Kong?

Can't argue any of that. But China is not really Communist anymore, even if some party wants to Masquerade as such. There isn't public ownership of production, and they have a market economy. This is capitalism, their tax rates are even lower than those in the US, its not even neo-socialism like such as they practice in Scandinavian countries

I will say there is a particular ideology people are referring to. It is a type of left-wing authoritarianism, and it is usually practiced by these ex-communist countries. Some people like to refer to this as Cultural Marxism, although I'm not sure its fair to attribute this particular ideology to him. They have just used his rhetorical style and applied it to social issues to justify their authoritarianism, and combined this with capitalist economics, which I very much doubt Marx would have approved of.

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't understand Kropotkin ideas of communism. Communism will never happen under anarchy because there's no state to enforce it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don't understand Kropotkin ideas of communism. Communism will never happen under anarchy because there's no state to enforce it.

Yes, a valid criticism, ill try my best to convey the different lines of thinking about this problem

Kropotkin wanted to replace the state apparatus and representatives with direct democracy. The community would enforce it.

This sort of arrangement can and has worked on very small scales, like a few hundred people. There is an entire school of sociology devoted to this idea. I don't know if you have heard of Dunbar's Number, but this idea is straight out of this school of thought that looks at the dynamics of group size and the need for dedicated enforcement

I would say that Kropotkin's ideas could probably not work at a very large scale, and he did envision many small autonomous communities. However history also tells us that there were likely many small groups practicing this sort of arrangement, and were likely all conquered by larger and more organized statists.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's not libertarian then

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's not libertarian then

Not in the colloquial sense of American Libertarians. But in the sense of libertarianism being the opposite of authoritarianism. There is no authority putting themselves above the people, no centralization, only the people themselves, and in the sense that anarchism and libertariansm both have a dislike of hierarchcal authority. These two ideologies are fairly close to each other. Historically, libertarianism has not always been associated with conservatism like it is now in the US. Mostly due to their laissez-faire economic attitude being shared with conservatives

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Direct democracy is authoritarian

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Direct democracy is authoritarian

Yes, a valid point, and I actually agree. It's rule of the masses. But it's a much different thing than top down authority. It's the polar opposite of the Marxist model that embraces top-down authoritarianism, because this type of authority is by dictate. I'd say it attempts to be anti-authoritarian by distributing the authority among many instead of a few, but ignores tyranny of the masses.

I'd consider this anti-authoritarian, because the aim is clearly to eliminate arbitrary dictates and reduce the power and authority of any individual. But I would also say this doesn't work as intended, and we end up with a different sort of tyranny that is not any better, or less authoritarian, just different

Both mobs and despots can be tyrannical

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Orwell got it right on the all encompassing desire of power for powers sake as the true betrayer of the revolution and why all communist experiments ultimately fail.

I think Americans especially though, and they can hardly he blamed to the rampant anti-communist propaganda being spread since the 1950's, tend to do what the propoganda is designed to do and have instant knee jerk thought free reactions towards simply the word itself without really taking the time to understand what the ideology of communism is or why it has failed. It's just commies un-good, our state double plus good.

Communism has always attracted a bunch of kooks and weirdos that have no bearing on reality so it tends to collapse into sheer idiocy whenever someone tries to organize it, it's the problem with having a simple overarching ideological answer for all of life's problems. What is the essence of class struggle? Why it's the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie comrade. Just replace the terms with whatever up down power dynamic you want to go with, us vs them, divide et impera. Revolutionaries love it as it destabilizes power dynamics and gives them an in to establish their own new power dynamic with themselves at the top! No one is going to willingly give up the seat of power once obtained no matter how good their intentions are going in. The ring is mine! It came to me! I found it! It's rightfully mine! But we can always convince some poor overworked and exploited bumpkin that I actually care about him and they'll toss in what they will, what have they got to lose under capitalism or communism? To him both are shit. Ideological platitudes don't put food in your belly.

It is of course a mistake to simply discard learning about Marx and his teachings and giving credit where credit is due. He was right at his basic explanation of the power structure of his society at the time, albeit the explanation is overly simplistic. He was right that the power shift away from the nobility into a new ruling class of capitalists along with the industrial revolution changing the world from a primarily agrarian to manufacturing base was destabilizing communities and causing a great deal of suffering as workers unable to navigate this new world well were getting exploited. And he was certainly right about the use of religion by the state to keep the proles in line as well. As well as the astute observation that ultimately philosophy and patriotism are subservient to the more pressing need of actual material benefits, in other words a starving man will sing whatever song the soup monger wants him to sing.

But ultimately this whole idea of the ultimate revolution of the proletariat and all that utopian garbage that comes with it is his failing, Marx does what everyone today does, easily points out the problems with society, makes a simple yet incomplete and shortsighted guess as to why that is, then proves utterly retarded at providing solutions to fix the problem that won't bork up the world more. I mean my god the dictatorship of the proletariat? You fucking retarded? Look at every ideological revolution throughout history? It's ok guys you can trust me with absolute dictatorial power I promise to use it for good! Let's start with killing those terrorists who said I wouldn't use my power for good!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am glad to see somebody actually understands Marx and these economic issues

Marx does what everyone today does, easily points out the problems with society, makes a simple yet incomplete and shortsighted guess as to why that is, then proves utterly retarded at providing solutions

This is a distinction I wish more people were able to make. His critiques were largely on the money, his solutions not so much