Yes exactly.
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
46385 readers
184 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, not around here?
We don't have a lot of dyed in the wool capitalists on Lemmy, so I see a lot less of that sentiment here. On Lemmy we have way more issues with full-on-tankies than right wingers.
The rest of the internet, though? Oh yeah.
Usually complaining about "tankies" is just another way to hate Socialism, the Red Scare never ended and being aware of it doesn't make you immune to its effects in any capacity.
My friend, there is an ideological ocean between "workers should collectively own the means of production" and "we need an authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence to enforce communism."
I mean this with all sympathy, after all, I used to share views similar to your own before I started taking Marxism seriously, and to dismiss you would be to dismiss myself, and thus the capacity for change. When you simplify Marxism to "workers should collectively own the Means of Production," you remove the entirety of Marxism, as such a thought was common even pre-Marx. When you simplify AES to "authoritarian states with a monopoly on violence to enforce Communism," you assume greater knowledge of the practice of building Socialism than the billions of people who have worked tirelessly to bring it into existance for the last century.
With all due respect, and no "I've read more than you so my power level is higher" nonsense, have you read Marx?
With all due respect to theory, I've seen too much of it shit all over people who lack education, context, or ability to understand, and basically leaves those people out of the conversation and acts like their opinions don't matter because they haven't read the right books or have the right education.
The differences between academic unions and blue-collar unions were always stark to me, and when there was ever any connection between the two, the academics would roll their eyes and be dismissive of the blue-collar people, who may have not always been theory conscious but were good people, a la Samwise Gamgee (in terms of Tolkiens ideas of the kind of good, kind, but simple people he met in WWI). Constantly telling those people that they don't know enough to be involved isn't ever really a positive way forward, in my opinion, and anything where it's forced from the top-down on those people instead of having their input is something I'm against, sorry. You can't explain away taking away people's right to input in their own governance with theory, to me.
I've read some Marx, but never got my hands on an unabridged copy of Capital, nor did I finish it because it was pretty tedious. I personally think Debord had way more profound things to say, and Society of the Spectacle is the most dog-eared book I own. Mixed with McLuhan's Understanding Media, I'm actually partial to think communications might actually be neck-and-neck with commodities in terms of importance of understanding them. I mean, Debord thought that too, which is why he thought he would be remembered for his board game Kriegspiel, (a war game focusing on lines of communication) not for SotS.
I am not trying to tell you that your opinions are "invalid" or "worthless." You raise a good problem well known by actual, practicing Marxists among Western "Marxists" that seek to endlessly critique society without changing it. However, it would be a mistake to not learn from Socialists in the past and present who have a wealth of experience and lifetimes of analysis to draw from. Rather, my goal isn't telling you that you don't know enough to be involved, but that I think you are making a critical error in attacking Socialists based on what I believe are misconceptions and misunderstandings, and this hurts leftist movement.
I think if you made an effort to understand what these billions of Socialists believe in and are committed to, you would better understand if their ideas and systems are valid or not. I think without reading theory that you are only going to have an incomplete and partial view, and this, while not delegitimizing your opinions and views, certainly harms the integrity. Celebrating an "end to theory" was something the Socialist Revolutionaries adhered to pre-revolution in Russia, and this was proven a mistake, while the Bolsheviks' strict adherence to theory and mass worker organization proved correct.
Bud, I'm reading theory, and you're literally telling me I'm not reading the right theory.
Kinda? If you want to have an opinion of Marxists, I would read Marx and historical accounts by Marxists to even understand better what they are trying to do better, rather than Anarchist critiques of Marxism. Your initial comment came out attacking Marxists, so I tried to contextualize that more.
I don't know how to more emphatically tell you that Debord was such a Marxist his many of his theses from Society of the Spectacle literally were copying/detourning Marx lines. His "plagiarism is necessary" thing is something he lived up to when writing the book. Like three quarters of things in the book are other writers words twisted into what Debord wants to talk about. The Lettrists/Situationists were literally building on what came before.
The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.
Sure, and I am telling you that based on your assertions thus far he evidently isn't enough to actively take a hostile stance towards Marxists.
I have known Marxists, and they didn't self-ascribe the term "tankie" to mean "Marxist." In fact the ones I've known would bristle at the suggestion.
Clarify the difference, then, because whenever anyone seems to do so they end up just clarifying a tiny minority of western orthodox Marxists as "real Marxists" and the billions of practicing Marxists as "tankies."
A tankie is someone who thinks that once their country is already fully communist that it's their prerogative to enforce communist thought in their citizens through violence and control of information.
I'm not fucking saying the West is any better. Literally every country on this fucking shitty rock spinning through space sucks and it's because humans suck. Every single one of them is authoritarian in how they're structured. But to pretend like that doesn't happen at all ever in communist countries is a fucking joke. Humans are flawed and government is imperfect everywhere, and when the solutions are to violently put down dissenting viewpoints or to memory hole information I personally think your government has lost the plot, no matter the type of government. Once again, this means literally every government on the planet has lost the plot.
You can't tell me China is fucking perfect just like I couldn't say any Western countries are fucking perfect. Literally everything is flawed, so when you've turned to violence to put down people who disagree and think that's worth it, you've lost me.
Like bro we had an entire ass pandemic where if China had been more forthcoming with information instead of being politically embarrassed about it, it might not have been so fucking bad. No I don't believe in any dumb lab shit theories, but this is what government's everywhere do, they prioritize not looking bad over actually protecting their citizens. As they age, institutions start existing to exist and lose track of why they were originally created, that happens in all societies. (And no dip the US's handling of COVID made it way worse, which is why it was important for China to take it more seriously so maybe it wouldn't have made it to the fucking untrustworthy idiots in the US.)
No country has made it to a Communist mode of production yet, only Socialist, and all countries use violence to perpetuate their systems. By that metric, anyone who supports any Socialist country is a tankie. No, China isn't perfrct, but it's much better than western countries on average. You only seem to accept perfection as valid.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
How could any socialist country protect the workers without a state in 2025?
So you're saying you only believe hierarchical societies with monopolies on violence are viable societies? Where a strong-man makes the decisions from the top-down for everyone else?
There is no room for decentralization of control or a non-authoritarian dominance? There is no room for socialism grown from the bottom up organically instead of forced from the top down?
Why must the idea of "state" equal "authoritarian state with monopoly on violence?" There is no other such type of state we can imagine?
Markets aren't evil, workers who own the mean of production will still be trading with other groups of workers who own their own means of production. A t-shirt factory will be trading with a textiles factory. Capitalism just raises the importance of markets to the detriment of pretty much everything else in life.
Hierarchical? Yes, we need administrators, managers, planners, and other forms of necessary hierarchy as we continue to work towards more complex production at larger and larger scales. Even Anarchists concede this point.
Authoritarian? What constitutes "authoritarianism," any hierarchy? If you oppose all hierarchy, it sounds like you disagree with even mainstream Anarchism, and seek to return to more tribal modes of production, scavenging and whatnot.
Grown "from the bottom-up?" Yes, Marxism has historically been accomplished by Proletarian revolution and organization, it hasn't succeeded from tiny terrorist cells throwing coups. Mass worker movements are what achieved Socialism.
A "strong-man" making all of the decisions? No, and that's not how AES states actually existed. Nobody argues for such a method, if that's a euphamism for full public ownership of property, I ask why you separate the people from the government at that point.
As for the idea of an "authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence," I don't know what you specifically mean here. That sounds to me like all states, sans the as-yet undefined "authoritarian" bent. AES is democratic, so there must be something you don't like but haven't defined yet. Furthermore, trying to "design" a perfect society is Utopianism, and doesn't actually focus on how to build Socialism from where we are.
Markets aren't evil, correct, at low levels of development they are highly useful. However, the goal is full Public Ownership, as Central Planning becomes far more efficient at higher levels of development. A system of "worker coops" would inevitably work towards either a regression into Capitalism or centralization into Socialism, a problem shown and worked out in Anti-Dühring by Engels.
Overall, I think you owe it to yourself to read more historical accounts of AES and how they function, Blackshirts and Reds as I linked earlier is a good start.
AES is democratic, so there must be something you don’t like but haven’t defined yet.
Well to be fair, I'm probably closer to anarchist than strict socialist because to me decentralization of power and communications is how you solve a lot of this and no societies that exist or have existed have really tried it in the sort of capacities we could try it at this point in history, I believe. There's just no society who has even come close yet. I do think we were held back slightly technologically and communications have progressed to the level that things can be more decentralized, a la citizen communications like the barbed wire telephone network. I think current iterations of democracy are all really outdated and that there's been plenty of new options to try but there is no political willpower in any society to pursue those things.
I wouldn't say I ascribe to Critical Theory, but the general idea of "there is no perfect anything, we must always be critiquing and trying new ways" speaks to me. So hanging our future on 200 year old ideas without any progression or growth of those ideas feels foolhardy to me.
Do you have specific issues with the real democratic structures of AES states that you can point to further decentralization helping with? Most AES countries practice a sort of "top-down, from the bottom-up" form of democracy. Essentially, building "rungs" of councils that start at local levels, elect delegates for regional councils, who elect delegates to further levels as necessary. This is both centralized, in that the highest level has the final say, but decentralized in that the higher levels only make decisions pertaining those lower to them, and can change delegates or practice recall elections. It gets more complex than that, obviously, but this seems as decentralized as is practical.
As for your support for "critiquing everything," you sound like a Marxist-Leninist. Criticism and Self-Criticism are core concepts of Marxism-Leninism, and the practice of repeating the dialectical materialist cycle of turning theory into practice to refine theory and refine practice is the core to Marxist-Leninist knowledge. The base of Marxism isn't simply 200 years old, but thousands, it's a cumulative effort of the early materialists, the early dialecticians, Capitalists like Adam Smith and Ricardo, Utopian Socialists like Owen, Dialectical Idealists like Hegel, and more. We keep Marx's ideas (and Lenins, etc) inasmuch as they are still valid, and by our analysis they overwhelmingly are.
Does that make sense?
Do you have specific issues with the real democratic structures of AES states that you can point to further decentralization helping with?
I understand how all this works, and I think those are systems built on human communications systems of the 18th century, not the 21st. I think communications have come so far that we need to consider that more decentralization and distribution than we already have isn't going to somehow make things worse.
Current iterations are Napster, and I want us to be be Bittorrent.
Like I said elsewhere, I think communications and how they alienate us from each other has potentially become the bigger issue than commodities separating us, which is why I'm less interested in Marx and more interested in Debord/McLuhan.
Like how McLuhan talked about the history of ancient Egypt and how, after the invention of papyrus and use by the military, the power in society went from the Priest caste, who previously were the only people who could write, to the military caste, because their writing was current, prudent, and useful in everyday life. It changed power relations in society based on a different type of communications system. Modern communications, especially software are literally language made manifest and so much of our world runs on it all now that the private corporations that own it all can effectively put a gun to the world's head and say "do what we say or we make it all stop working." We can also look at the flip side, the Great Firewall of China, which endlessly spies on all its citizens and even gives them cute popups to remind them that cops are actively watching their online activity, and why friends of mine used to risk running Tor exit nodes because they wanted to support dissidents in countries who were blocking their communications.
Does that make sense?
Those systems that I described came from the 20th century at the earliest, and are regularly iterated upon to better meet the demands of the people. I'm not saying your focus on communication is wrong, but that you shouldn't attack others if you aren't aware of their actual history or developed theory, as you casually tossed aside frequently in this very conversation. Even with China, Western companies spy to an even greater degree and yet China was specifically singled out, I think this method is entirely unproductive and further alienating.
I literally expressed that Western tech companies can and will hold a proverbial gun to the worlds head to get what they want and you attack me for "singling out China." Okay.
My point was that communications are fucked when they're controlled by centralized powers instead of decentralized and citizen-controlled. Like I said, there isn't a modern country that does this right. They're all draconian fuckheads who want to spy on their populace but have privacy for those in positions of power. It's not the system, it's humans, and it's that kind of shit that you have to face when designing societies (remember the Utopian thinking you brought up?) that when you're centralizing power of any kind, you're creating more opportunities for despotism. Currently, everywhere, all communications are pretty centralized. We don't have lots of rogue communications in most countries, partially because even things like encrypted communications still have to use hardware owned by communications operators to be able to get from Point A to Point B. I'm just interacting with Lemmy, but on the way back and forth, my data passes through all kinds of privately-owned infrastructure that I have no control over.
Once again, this is why I think communications are currently neck and neck with commodities in terms of importance of understanding how their function changes society and alienates us from each other.
I'd say the answer lies in further centralization, which when combined with democratic structures leads to no abilities for individual actors to take advantage of the system itself. Decentralization can often backfire, but presently it's useful under Capitalism.
which when combined with democratic structures leads to no abilities for individual actors to take advantage of the system itself.
You know people keep saying that, and each time, surprise, there's a despot at the end. Sorry man, we're just on different pages here.
Guess we are, considering I don't think "each time there's another despot."
load more comments
(1 replies)
A system of “worker coops” would inevitably work towards either a regression into Capitalism or centralization into Socialism
Or have right-wing factions armed and trained by the CIA to overthrow the government and do a bunch of crimes against humanity during the 90s.
I don't know enough about Yugoslavia's economy to say whether their coop-centric model was responsible for the stagnation and high unemployment rates.
Yep, that's the problem with making such a structure the focus of the economy, and not just another element subservient to the Public Sector and government in general. Easy to take advantage of individualists in a cooperative based economy than a collectivized one.
load more comments
(4 replies)
There's an ideological ocean between utopian socialism and actually-existing socialism, yes. There's a reason why there's not been a successful historical instance of socialism in which workers collectivised without taking the power of the state in their hands.
Calling it "authoritarian state" kinda portrays lack of knowledge at democratic power structures and mechanisms in former socialist countries. Examples for the USSR: highest unionisation rates in the world, announcement/news boarboards in every workplace administered by the union, free education to the highest level for everyone, free healthcare, guaranteed employment and housing (how do the supposedly "authoritarian leaders" benefit from that?), neighbour commissions legally overviewing the activity and transparency of local administration, neighbour tribunals dealing with most petty crime, millions of members of the party, women's rights, local ethnicities in different republics having an option to education in their language and widespread availability of reading material and newspapers in their language... Please tell me one country that does that better nowadays
Current western Europe (Germany in particular) still has free education, free Healthcare, guaranteed housing, legalized LGBT marriage and weed, and many things more, and you don't go to Siberia for making a joke about the leader.
Union and party membership were obligatory BTW, if you didn't want to be labeled as a troublemaker.
load more comments
(6 replies)
It’s not because we have a boner for authority, it’s because history has shown us that, under the current conditions of global capitalist/imperialist hegemony, such a state is a necessary step in the process of reaching a classless society. It’s simply not possible to go directly from where we are right now to where all socialists want to end up. That’s why anarchism has never had a win that’s lasted more than few months before capitalist forces crush it.
Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:
But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Not disagreeing with the wider point about the Red Scare, but here specifically I've seen more issues with tankies supporting authoritarian regimes - up to and including saying that North Korea should "reclaim" South Korea and the like - than I have the rest of the political spectrum entirely, except for maybe centrist both-siders. There's the occasional MAGA chud trying to spew nonsense, but they seem to be pretty rare.
There are certain tankie instances that other servers have defederated for a reason.
load more comments
(29 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
We don’t have a lot of dyed in the wool capitalists on Lemmy
*dyed in the wool liberals
Liberalism is the philosophy of capitalism, capitalists are people who owns significant amounts of capital.
Capitalism is owning the means of production - which isn't limited to billionaires. Almost everybody who has a retirement plan is a capitalist because retirement funds invest in stocks, bonds, etc. Everyone with a savings account is a capitalist - they are supplying money the bank loans to other people, which is where savings account interest comes from. To honestly avoid being a capitalist you'd have to have no money or keep it in a mattress.
everybody who has a retirement plan is a capitalist because retirement funds invest in stocks, bonds, etc.
The term you're looking for is petite bourgeoisie: people who do get some income by owning slivers of the means of production, but who also have to live by selling their labor. Someone who has investments purely for retirement purposes is straining the lower bounds of that definition.
Everyone with a savings account is a capitalist
Change in your pocket is not anywhere close to owning the means of production.
load more comments
(1 replies)
User: "we don't have a lot of problems with capitalists here"
Also user: immediately starts to shit on a flavour of socialism
load more comments
(1 replies)
Blaming "capitalism" for all of society's problems is about as useful as blaming God or some gremlins. For example, if you're in the USA and you blame "capitalism" for your problems, then what are you gonna do about it? There is no path to change this society from capitalism to socialism or communism. We have entire armies of military and police who will ensure that the status quo stays in place. You also can't vote your way out of this. No candidates advocating such changes will be elected.
The best thing we can do is aim for better regulation of the systems that have allowed for the oligarchy to take it all over. Which won't be easy or quick at all but is at least somewhat possible.
Look, you can have nuance or you can have performative outrage, you don't get to have both. Lemmy has made its bed
The path has been laid out by Mr Luigi
the systems that have allowed for the oligarchy to take it all over
They didn't take it over, they created it. The lack of democratic influence isn't a bug, it's a feature. They have been laying to you all your life!
load more comments
(15 replies)
People blame capitalism, but capitalism isn't the problem. The problem, as always, is power.
Under feudalism things were much worse. Serfs worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. Up to 3 days of that week was spent tending your lord's lands for free.
Under absolute monarchies, dictatorships and police states you work as hard as you can for whatever hours your employer sets, and you keep any complaints to yourself or you're dragged off to a camp, or summarily executed.
So far, every time "communism" has been tried, it was just a dictatorship or police state where the leaders pretend that there's a higher ideal.
Capitalist republics don't give people at the bottom much power, but they get a little bit. And, that little bit is the best that the people at the bottom have ever had, even if it isn't much.
The fact that there are people at the bottom isn't the fault of some political system, and especially isn't the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of human nature.
load more comments
(48 replies)
You can be fine with the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and still favor a wealth cap and abolishing laws like Citizens United that give money undue influence on politics. Extreme wealth concentration actually hurts capitalism by starving the spending economy of money. It's a defect in the system that eventually spoils the system.
Lots of people on Lemmy forget that the choice between Capitalism and Socialism isn't binary. Country picks individual policies that are capitalist or socialist in nature. All of the modern countries are a combination of both. Even USA has certain socialist policies. Most of Europe is roughly equally capitalist and socialist.
It's just making a character build and picking perks. Capitalist policies aren't bad (for the general public) by default. Depending on how and which ones are implemented, they can be beneficial to everybody.
Europe has many more Social policies than the US, but it is nowhere close to equally parts Socialist and Capitalist.
Socialism means that the Workers own the means of production, and there is no country in Europe where that is the case.
Social policies != Socialism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Socialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does a whole bunch of stuff, its communism.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(24 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›