The problem with communism is that the people who believe in it are too lazy. We don't want to have a society where everyone plays video games all day!!!
ok seinfeld
And so capitalism is the answer to supressing/incarcerating these behaviors on both ends of the economic spectrum?
You're implying that communism wouldn't account for reprehensible behaviors such as pedophilia
Of course it would, and capitalism only worsens the problem.
But the existence of the nation-state, as we know it, and as has ever been attempted in history thus far, is incompatible with developing communism. This is the point I'm making. For communism to work, it cannot be done at a national level through a party, and it cannot result in the existence of nations anymore.
I mean Star Trek: TNG is literally f***ing communism lol and that show is considered the pinnacle of functional diplomacy in fiction
Sarvodaya been up since 1958 and has 11 million residents
communism in its true form is communes so yeah
Based
Finally someone is understanding my point lol
Nations are inherently bourgeoisie
Based
Finally someone is understanding my point lol
Nations are inherently bourgeoisie
I think you’re mixing up communism and socialism
Communism can’t involve a nation state
Socialism requires a state
Any communist who thinks that such an ideology can exist within a nation state, let alone it having existed yet at all, doesn’t understand the socialism -> communism process intuitively yet
Any communist who thinks that such an ideology can exist within a nation state, let alone it having existed yet at all, doesn’t understand the socialism -> communism process intuitively yet
Well obviously communism per se is a stateless society, it's the definition
Realistically none of us are communists, just socialists preparing future generations for that next step
Well obviously communism per se is a stateless society, it's the definition
There you have it
Realistically none of us are communists, just socialists preparing future generations for that next step
This is a stretch imo
We can call ourselves communists bc this is the end goal
There are socialists who dont believe in communism
Furthermore the terms are blurry, Marx and Lenin use them differently
It's best not to get into semantics IMO
This is a stretch imo
We can call ourselves communists bc this is the end goal
There are socialists who dont believe in communism
Furthermore the terms are blurry, Marx and Lenin use them differently
It's best not to get into semantics IMO
Yeah lol I’m just f***ing around
Yeah lol I’m just f***ing around
It confuses a lot of people. We tend to use the ML definitions though. Here Lenin improved on Marx.
It confuses a lot of people. We tend to use the ML definitions though. Here Lenin improved on Marx.
Those are the “state=power” “government=coordination” mish mash right
Of course it would, and capitalism only worsens the problem.
But the existence of the nation-state, as we know it, and as has ever been attempted in history thus far, is incompatible with developing communism. This is the point I'm making. For communism to work, it cannot be done at a national level through a party, and it cannot result in the existence of nations anymore.
you're assuming the nature of capitalist expansion will allow for the existence of communist organization without a centralized state.
even the ELZN, which is right now being attacked by far right paramilitaries supported by the Chiapas government, only exists because the outright extermination of the ELZN would be horrific international optics for the Mexican government.
the issue with communism is capitalist aggression. socialist countries fall into two categories: accepting of neoliberal reforms and foreign exploitation in exchange for the pacifism of capitalist aggression or blatant, malicious violence inflicted on the people for simply not allowing such egregious exploitation.
any competent communist society would have measures in place to quell the forces of reaction, but most importantly is to extinguish the mechanisms for the material interests of reaction ie making the system work for everybody and having systems in place to hold people accountable.
Of course it would, and capitalism only worsens the problem.
But the existence of the nation-state, as we know it, and as has ever been attempted in history thus far, is incompatible with developing communism. This is the point I'm making. For communism to work, it cannot be done at a national level through a party, and it cannot result in the existence of nations anymore.
Thats what communism strives for: a classless and stateless society. If by "anymore" you're referring to countries like china, the CCP can only be considered communist through its means of social control, it is a fundamentally capitalist economy with public and private enterprises
I'm genuinely all ears, Hegel a real one, keep going lol
This is very controversial, I can't write it all on my phone. Marx basically means dialectics in terms of motion and contradiction.
We often say: A person is either dead or alive. Technically it isn't true. Heart death and brain death are different. Furthermore, some of your bodily functions continue, and maybe for a split-second, some cells are alive and some are dying. Dialectics is about viewing those contradictory moments, viewing those transitions and motions. If you understand that, you can better understand what life and death mean in biological terms.
This is tied back to economics. Capitalism has only existed for 300 years or so. Before we had feudalism in Europe. So if you understand the transitional phase between feudalism and capitalism (often called mercantilism), you can understand capitalism better and why it works the way it does, for example why the bourgeoisie exists. Similarly, you can make educated guesses about the transitions that arise out of capitalism into the new system that will follow out of it.
The seed from which this transition grows are the contradictions of capitalism. Climate change; automation, falling profit rates, growing monopolies, alienation of workers. Ultimately these will accelerate the demise of capitalism. This doesnt mean that socialism will be its necessary replacement. But communism in the Marxist Leninist sense is the project of guiding and accelerating this transition consciously for the benefit of the working masses.
It's more complicated than this but I think this is a good start.
Whats the deal with abortion?! Just have it!
lmfao “Just have it!”
the new slogan
edit: can’t tell if you meant just have an abortion or have the baby
Any communist who thinks that such an ideology can exist within a nation state, let alone it having existed yet at all, doesn’t understand the socialism -> communism process intuitively yet
I'm basically rebuking the idea of socialism in one country as well as communism being a party affair. At least that's what I'm attempting to do.
lmfao “Just have it!”
the new slogan
edit: can’t tell if you meant just have an abortion or have the baby
Lol the ladder
"Families! They're like jobs! You hate them but you're there anyway!"
you're assuming the nature of capitalist expansion will allow for the existence of communist organization without a centralized state.
even the ELZN, which is right now being attacked by far right paramilitaries supported by the Chiapas government, only exists because the outright extermination of the ELZN would be horrific international optics for the Mexican government.
the issue with communism is capitalist aggression. socialist countries fall into two categories: accepting of neoliberal reforms and foreign exploitation in exchange for the pacifism of capitalist aggression or blatant, malicious violence inflicted on the people for simply not allowing such egregious exploitation.
any competent communist society would have measures in place to quell the forces of reaction, but most importantly is to extinguish the mechanisms for the material interests of reaction ie making the system work for everybody and having systems in place to hold people accountable.
this was a banger ngl
difference is, that selfishness isn’t built into communism itself like it is in capitalism
in communism, selfishness is a flaw
in capitalism, selfishness is an asset
^^
Thats what communism strives for: a classless and stateless society. If by "anymore" you're referring to countries like china, the CCP can only be considered communist through its means of social control, it is a fundamentally capitalist economy with public and private enterprises
i know China hasn't achieved communism, the CPC itself has said as much
But how does Socialism in One Country then turn into a stateless society? I don't agree with Trotskyist "permanent revolution", but I also don't agree that a century of "building socialism" is a practical solution either.