It’s reductionist to think of socialism/communism as oppositional to markets/capitalism. It’s much more freeing to think of it as a societal transition. As society grows disappointed with markets, society will transition to social control of production. There are many degrees between capitalism and communism. From highly regulated markets to state control of production. State control doesn’t have to be authoritarian. It could just have an administrative function. The reason the USSR and China seem authoritarian is because they are still in what Marxists call Siege Socialism. To maintain socialistic characteristics, socialist countries have to compete with capitalist countries, so to maintain control they have to limit markets, not to mention the military aspects.
Even if one is a proponent of a reformed capitalism, which many are, it cannot survive the consequences of climate change. Capitalism requires growth. A quasi- planned economy is coming, whether we want it or not. Better to get ahead of the transition, to avoid loss of life and suffering.
What definition of communism do you use that has no regard for worker enfranchisement, worker control of the means of production, or decommodification?
Why would anyone want socialism if it looks like the USSR, China, or DPRK? The socialistic characteristics of those countries are weaker than what you’d find in the US, let alone a social democracy.
Why is an active move away from communist principles required to transition to communism, and how many decades should workers expect to live under those comparatively (or absolutely) shitty conditions before actual communism is achieved.
This is why tankies are the enemy of actual communists - you defend fascist regimes, with worse conditions and fewer rights than we have, then hold them up as a glorious example of what we can achieve under communism, then when issues are pointed out, you invariably blame the US. The CIA has pulled some bullshit, but they’re not responsible for the state of China, the USSR, or the DPRK.
You need to read and understand the the position of Marxist theory before dismissing it. I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, but I understand how they have arrived at the need for state socialism. Depending on circumstances, they may be right.
You dodged all three of my questions. Surely for a worthwhile ideology, you’d be able to do better than “go read” - I’ve read theory - you haven’t made a point.
They bang on about material conditions then defend the state of places like the DPRK. I’m not unsympathetic to state socialism as a transitionary phase, but don’t like it because it centralised power to decentralise power, and somehow never seems to reach step 2 - China, DPRK, USSR…
It’s dumb because it’s a 1 dimensional, reactionary ideology with no meaningful principles, that makes the world and the countries that adopt it worse, and tends to result in genocide. Did I mention it harms actual communism? Why should I take it seriously?
It’s reductionist to think of socialism/communism as oppositional to markets/capitalism. It’s much more freeing to think of it as a societal transition. As society grows disappointed with markets, society will transition to social control of production. There are many degrees between capitalism and communism. From highly regulated markets to state control of production. State control doesn’t have to be authoritarian. It could just have an administrative function. The reason the USSR and China seem authoritarian is because they are still in what Marxists call Siege Socialism. To maintain socialistic characteristics, socialist countries have to compete with capitalist countries, so to maintain control they have to limit markets, not to mention the military aspects.
Even if one is a proponent of a reformed capitalism, which many are, it cannot survive the consequences of climate change. Capitalism requires growth. A quasi- planned economy is coming, whether we want it or not. Better to get ahead of the transition, to avoid loss of life and suffering.
3 questions:
What definition of communism do you use that has no regard for worker enfranchisement, worker control of the means of production, or decommodification?
Why would anyone want socialism if it looks like the USSR, China, or DPRK? The socialistic characteristics of those countries are weaker than what you’d find in the US, let alone a social democracy.
Why is an active move away from communist principles required to transition to communism, and how many decades should workers expect to live under those comparatively (or absolutely) shitty conditions before actual communism is achieved.
This is why tankies are the enemy of actual communists - you defend fascist regimes, with worse conditions and fewer rights than we have, then hold them up as a glorious example of what we can achieve under communism, then when issues are pointed out, you invariably blame the US. The CIA has pulled some bullshit, but they’re not responsible for the state of China, the USSR, or the DPRK.
You need to read and understand the the position of Marxist theory before dismissing it. I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, but I understand how they have arrived at the need for state socialism. Depending on circumstances, they may be right.
You dodged all three of my questions. Surely for a worthwhile ideology, you’d be able to do better than “go read” - I’ve read theory - you haven’t made a point.
They bang on about material conditions then defend the state of places like the DPRK. I’m not unsympathetic to state socialism as a transitionary phase, but don’t like it because it centralised power to decentralise power, and somehow never seems to reach step 2 - China, DPRK, USSR…
It’s dumb because it’s a 1 dimensional, reactionary ideology with no meaningful principles, that makes the world and the countries that adopt it worse, and tends to result in genocide. Did I mention it harms actual communism? Why should I take it seriously?
With such erudite analysis, you should start a sub stack or write books to share your knowledge.
Probably beats talking past dipshits that have no point, and are incapable of answering the most basic questions about the topic at-hand.
I know, right? Tell me about.