![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
Ah yes, if a Communist is young, they are naiive, and if a Communist is older, they are cyncial and regressive.
The double-think is strong with you.
Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us
He/him or they/them, doesn’t matter too much
Ah yes, if a Communist is young, they are naiive, and if a Communist is older, they are cyncial and regressive.
The double-think is strong with you.
On the other hand it’s been about 20 years since I read the work of Marx and Weber. I had classes on social stratification, feminism, materialism, and conflict theory. I’m pretty rusty.
Critique of the Gotha Programme is a quick read on how Marx envisions the transition to Socialism and eventually Communism.
How do we put the genie back in the bottle when we released it so very long ago? Let’s try looking at children. Education would certainly help, but can you teach empathy without the help of the parent(s)? Even if the parental figures teach empathy and structured education enforces these teachings, we come to secondary groups. This would be groups like the child’s friends or peers.They are considered more important to childhood development after a certain age (12? Not the same for everyone of course maybe an average). If the members of these secondary groups do not value empathy, the child who was taught it by their parental figures and enforced by education will begin to value it less.
This is a very ideas-focused view of society. Largely, culture and values are shaped by Material Conditions amd Mode of Production. This is the concept of Base and Superstructure, the base being the material conditions and mode of production, and the superstructure being ideology and culture.
We move beyond class society through collectivization and Socialism. This society then moves on to Communism.
I don’t know the answers. Believe me I want fully automated post-scarcity space communism. I really want it. I just can’t see the way there.
Believe me, everyone wishes we could jump hundreds of years to higher-stage Communism. Anarchists even think we can approximate that now, which is a whole other school of thought. However, Socialism is a drastic improvement on Capitalism, and lower-stage Communism is a drastic improvement on Socialism as well. Progress should not be impeded because the target is far away, especially if the process of building it is itself progress.
Some instances on Lemmy are going through a Red Scare, I doubt they can explain.
Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca tend to be right-leaning even if they have some Leftist comms. The fediverse still appeals to leftists, but liberals have their own enclaves.
According to Harvard in 2020, 95.5% do. That certainly isn’t 100%, but it’s pretty high, I would say.
You are the perfect person to ask, because you claimed Communism cannot work because “power corrupts” and “human nature.” I am not saying you are a Capitalist. Your ideas regarding Marxism are immaterial and vibes-based, which is why I am trying to get you to take a Materialist stance.
Why does power corrupt? How can representatives be held accountable? What determines “human nature?”
Power itself does not corrupt. People generally act in their material interests, and in Capitalism, this is dominated by the profit motive, like all class society. The bourgeoisie are focused on making profit, no more and no less. The Capitalist State is molded by the class in power, ie the bourgeoisie, and thus serves the interests of Capital. In an alternative, collectivized system, these same dynamics would be abolished, with a different set of challenges taking their place, such as the question of allocating labor.
Representatives can be held accountable via democratic measures, ie a representative democracy. Worker councils and parliaments can handle coordination and check against corruption.
Human Nature is determined by material conditions. Humans are thought to be competitive naturally because Capitalism is competitive, even though the average worker does not care, only the bourgeoisie do. In different Modes of Production, “Human Nature” appeared very different. In primitive Communism, for example, Human Nature was cooperative and communal, class society arose from technological advancements like the agricultural revolution.
You need organization, yes. What is “fair?” Why can’t there be democratic processes keeping these people in check? What does “human nature” have to do with this, does the local post office go rogue?
I understand that the basis of Capitalism is that it isn’t fair in any way, shape, or form, but why does that mean it’s better?
Why would “power corrupts” mean Communism can’t be fully implemented? What on Earth are you talking about, specifically?
America is a one party dictatorship, and in typical American extravagence, it has two of them.
Arce telling the coup leaders to fuck off to their face on live TV was wild, lmao
Jumping straight into Capital is like going spelunking with no tools or training, it’s Marx’s masterwork but it’s dense and complicated for those not versed in Marxism already, and it isn’t targetting the average person, but economists and scholars. That’s not to say you should never read it, just hold off, for now.
A few great primers for Marxism in general are Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein, The Principles of Communism by Friederich Engels, and How Marxism Works by Chris Harman, in the order I recommend reading them.
Marx did write for the common worker in several texts. Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit are short and concise works on Marx’s critique of Capitalism. After that, I’d wrap around to Engels again for Socialism: Utopian and Scientific to understand the history of Socialist efforts and how Marxism solves the problems they have faced, and touches on Dialectical Materialism, the philosophical framework of Marxism. Add on Critique of the Gotha Programme to see Marx critique a weak Socialist program and advocate for a better method, then swing over to Manifesto of the Communist Party to tie everything by Marx and Engels together and spur revolutionary fervor.
Finally, I would make sure to read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin. This does not really get into Marxism-Leninism, this is Lenin as a Marxist examining how Capitalism has changed over time to exploit the global south via exporting machinery and predatory global bank loans, absolutely critical for understanding modern Capitalism. If you want to get into Marxism-Leninism, add on The State and Revolution by Lenin as well, but you do not need to at this point.
We are in the Age of Imperialism, specifically its decay. Over time, the global south is becoming increasingly revolutionary and are throwing off the IMF and the US. Eventually this will destabilize the US, the world’s current largest Imperialist power, and give rise to the possibility of a Socialist movement within the US as commodities become more expensive and Material Conditions weaken. This will be due to a decreasing subsidization of cost of living in the US off the labor of workers in the Global South.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Yes, Marx makes it clear what’s wrong with Capitalism, why it cannot last forever, provides a philosophical framework for viewing any problem, conflict, or struggle, and shows how to move beyond our present dystopian state.
Read Marx, it’s comforting.
I’ve been working through classics and they are usually a bit dated. Dune is goodish, but also I prefer the new movies for their much better treatment of women, the Fremen, and removal of the wierder parts. Neuromancer feels like Gibson wrote it with one hand and has never spoken to a woman in his life.
I remember loving Roadside Picnic a while back. If you want to be incredibly sad, Han Kang’s Human Acts is brutal but beautifully written.
I try to alternate between fiction and theory, helps me digest the theory better while maintaining interest and momentum in reading!
I am a Marxist, yes.
Hexbear doesn’t praise Putin, but they do praise Xi, quite a bit.