You're viewing a single thread.
powerful "leopards eating faces" energy from the tankies. I wish them luck with the anti-communist death squads outlined in project 2025
They're Tankies, their entire ideology is feline face eating based. Russia SO KNOWN for how well it treats minorities and LGBT people!
Tankie in 1956: Getting into your T-90 and driving across the Hungarian border to brutally suppress an uprising of (coughnationalcough) socialists protesting Soviet occupation
Tankie in 2024: Getting into your PSA Bronto and doing donuts in your neighborhood cul de sac blaring "Don't Vote for Joe Biden" out of a megaphone, until police show up and drag you off to prison for violating a noise ordinance.
This is historically incorrect. The T-90 didn't enter service until 1992. They would have gotten into T-54/55s or T-44. Possibly even T-34s?
Wish the people emulating (knowingly or unknowingly) the ideology of Ernst Thälmann would look a little harder at how that worked out for both Germany and him.
Wishing the people emulating (knowingly or unknowingly) the ideology of the SDP would look a little harder at how backing Hindenburg instead of Thälmann worked out for both Germany and them.
Ok, first of all it's the SPD, the SDP is the UK. Oh yeah, obviously it was the moderate democratic socialists who supported democracy that were to blame and not the stalinists who openly allied with Nazis to dismantle the democratic government. And guess what, most of the KPD that made it to the Soviet Union were killed by Stalin or handed back to the Gestapo anyways, what great people they followed.
The KPD declared the SPD their greatest enemy, not the other way around.
I will concede the KPD responded more appropriately to Hitler taking power, but it was too fucking late then anyways. Even the KPD internal resistance had pretty limited effect. At least the SPD operated the government in exile.
The SPD was more than happy to paint the KPD as their enemies as well, the rift between them started with the SPD's unconditional support of WWI and violent suppression of antiwar efforts. The KPD did not ever "openly ally with the Nazis," that's just a bold faced lie.
Somehow, the only people who tried to stop both world wars, and the only people running an anti-Hitler candidate in 1932 get painted as the bad guys. It's absurd the kinds of mental gymnastics you have to go through to get there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Period It was pretty easy to paint them as the bad guys when they fully aligned with Stalin, before then, yeah, totally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany#The_Third_Period_and_"social_fascism"
"In August 1931, to capitalise on their growing popularity, the Nazi Party launched a referendum to overthrow the Social Democratic government of Prussia. At first the KPD correctly attacked it. Then, three weeks before the vote, under orders from Stalin's Comintern, they joined forces with the fascists to bring down the main enemy, the Social Democrats. They changed the name of the plebiscite to a 'Red Referendum' and referred to the fascists and the members of the SA as 'working people's comrades'!" http://www.marxist.com/germany-sewell-chapter-7.htm
My dude, they absolutely did, the KPD enabled Stalin to facilitate the rise to power of the Nazis by allying with them to fight the SPD. Fuck Tankies.
Are you basing your comment on the idea that stalin is as bad as hitler? Cause thats some ig'nant ass shit to see on lemmy.
The SPD were just as happy to equate the KPD with the Nazis as the KPD was to call the SPD social fascists.
Voting alongside the Nazis on a referendum is not the same thing as "openly allying with the Nazis." The status quo at the time was austerity in the middle of a massive economic crisis, it was fundamentally unsustainable. The KPD didn't want the Nazis to be able to dominate opposition to that. It's true that they underestimated them, but the answer was not (as the SPD did) throwing their weight behind austerity measures for the sake of stability, it wouldn't have changed a single thing if they had.
It still remains the fact that the person who put Hitler into power was Hindenburg, who was backed by the SPD.
The thing is, i promised my mom and my history teacher id never vote for a genocider, so my hands are tied. If dems want to run someone who isnt the literal definition of evil, i wouldnt have to vote for trump. Its insane how dems love to use the lesser evil argument right up until theyre convincing us to vote for a genocider.
I thought tankies live in countries like China and Russia.
Can you define US tankies please?
They'll actually cheer on for those death squads. If they had their way, they would have their own death squads. Marxists are infamous for their tyranny, genocide, forced deportations, engineered famines, purges, labor camps, hate, and secret police death squads.
Marxism and fascism are sister ideologies because they ultimately want the same things but just from slightly different angles.
Marxism: History is defined by material conditions and value comes from appropriated labour which workers are entitled to. Thus society should be oriented around collective ownership of the means of production in order to elevate the material conditions of the worker and usher in a new age of history. It is inevitable that the owning class will resort to violence to maintain their position and so this change will be a violent struggle. Eventually the state itself should be abolished once the transition is complete. Also this is inevitable because umm science wand wave.
Fascism: Power should be centralised on strong men wiling to make hard choices, everyone else should live subservient to the state. Military power, an ethnonational identity, and autarchy are the highest pursuits. Concession and concensus are weakness, might is the ultimate expression of power and violence for the glory of the nation is beautiful. Modernity is degenerate and we should idolise a mythologised past based around an ethnic group we claim the mantle of.
SleezyDizasta: Could these be the same? 🧐
SleezyDizasta: Could these be the same?
That's stupid, that's not what I implied. I said that they're sister ideologies that desire the same things just with different approaches, and that's objectively true.
Fascism was started by Mussolini, who was an infamous Marxist for most of his early life. He used to write for Marxist papers, be an avid Marxist activist, attend Marxist meetings, and even got arrested for rioting for Marxist causes. He, like many other socialists at the time, was against war. However, over time he came to the conclusion that war might not be a bad thing. If wars happened more frequently, it could bring about the social climate necessary for revolutions to happen that would end European monarchies and replace them with socialist systems. However, his ideas were rejected by the other socialists and he was shunned by them.
Mussolini started shifting away from other socialists over what unites men. Socialists believe it's class, but Mussolini started shifting towards the nation. He and his supporters starting gravitating towards revolutionary nationalism.. Professor Anthony Gregor from UC Berkely described Mussolini's nationalism as the following:
Mussolini's revolutionary nationalism, while it distinguished itself from the traditional patriotism and nationalism of the bourgeoisie, displayed many of those features we today identify with the nationalism of underdeveloped peoples. It was an anticonservative nationalism that anticipated vast social changes; it was directed against both foreign and domestic oppressors; it conjured up an image of a renewed and regenerated nation that would perform a historical mission; it invoked a moral ideal of selfless sacrifice and commitment in the service of collective goals; and it recalled ancient glories and anticipated a shared and greater glory
Mussolini's Fascism was very clearly heavily influenced by Marxism. He used a lot of the same ideals, a lot of the same terminology, similar rhetoric, and similar types of analytical lenses. In fact professor Gregor notes that Mussolini's viewed Fascism as a type of socialism, or rather as the successor of socialism:
"Fascism was the only form of 'socialism' appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth century"
Even though Mussolini eventually parted ways with Marxism all together. His opposition to them wasn't because they were socialists but because they were anti-nationalist. Despite declaring Marxism a failure and socialists as opposition, he still thought and constantly talked about how Fascism was about poor nations rising up against the plutocrats.
When I say they're sister ideologies, they literally are.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_nationalism
It's almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didn't adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
It’s almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didn’t adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Yeah no shit, they're different ideologies. I'm just pointing out that they're similar, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
This isn't even logically coherent.
They're not at all similar... Like... wtf. All you can say is one violent thug followed Marxism and then stopped follow Marxism, did something completely different, while saying stuff that sounded like Marxism because he knew it sounded good.
Just dot point me, pick idk 5 core areas and just write what fascists proposed vs what Marxists proposed.
I legit cannot thing of anything with overlap except
- violence is sometimes good (literally even pacifists believe this)
and
- people united in purpose can wield power (again not at all at unique hypothesis)
What have you got?
Okay here you go:
-
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
-
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
-
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
-
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
-
Explicit support of political violence - You're trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
There's more, but you asked for 5.
Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare
Dialectical Materialism is literally a product of Marx and Engels. Granted they didn't call it that, but they very much called it Materialism.
And everyone who took after M&E used D.M. Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Stalin wrote Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Mao wrote On contradiction. George Pulitzer, a teacher at the Workers' University (which taught marxism), had a student write up notes from his class into a book: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Elementary_principles_of_philosophy
Quibbles:
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state. The vanguard party stuff is all Lenin. If you want to compare ML to fascism that's a separate discussion, iirc Marx is actually pretty vague on what precisely the DotP would actually look like. Fascism proposes an indefinite centralisation of power with the goal of ultimate preservation of the state.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think it's somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everything. Westminster democracy aligns itself against a common enemy of absolute monarchy, republics unite themselves against a nobility, tribes unite themselves against non kin outsiders.... Is there an ideology that doesn't declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Ah, you have not read Marx! I can see how you might get this stance but no. This is just false. Marx imagined a utopia where people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, could pursue individual fulfilment. If I may pretentiously quote:
"For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Explicit support of political violence - You’re trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence. Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didn't want to "burn down the capitalist system and institutions" actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didn't think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
This sounds a lot like "Both involve violence therefore the same" but that's extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
So in summary I think you have as similarities:
Don't like materialism, authority features, has an enemy, and violence features. Which ok, if that makes stuff sister ideologies then it's a broad tent with literally everything from Liberation Theology Christianity, to westminster democracy, to Peelan Policing sharing sisterhood with Marxism and Fascism.
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state.
The issue here is that the "non authoritarian non state" is communism, and communism for all intents and purposes is just a utopia. It was Marx and Engels vision of a perfect society. It's nothing more than a fantasy. Utopias don't exist and never will. When these types of violent revolutions happen and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, it's going to remain there indefinitely because communism is an unachievable goal. The theory itself is flawed.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Marx laid out what he meant by dictatorship of proletariat in his short work, Critique of the Gotha Programme. In this critique he went after the German Social Democratic Party program for being too pragmatic, pacifist, and wanting reform which he deemed didn't go far enough in overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism. As a part of his critique, he explained what a post revolution dictatorship looks like. There's a lot to it but it could more or less be summed up in these points
-
He saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary transitional phase between capitalism and communism. During this phase, the proletariat will hold all the political power and use it to reorganize society and the economy.
-
He doubled down on the idea that the proletariat must seize political power through revolution in order to exert control over the state apparatus, which he thought was a tool of class oppression under capitalism.
-
He emphasized that the dictatorship of the proletariat is aimed at dismantling capitalist relations of production, including private ownership of the means of production, and replacing them with collective ownership.
-
He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as a form of state in which the working class, organized as the ruling class, actively suppresses the resistance of the bourgeoisie and other counter revolutionary forces (read: democide).
-
He thought that once the conditions for communism have been established, the need for a state will slowly wither away... which would ultimately lead to communism
This is pretty well defined and not nearly as vague as you're trying to make it out to be. Points 1 and 5 won't ever happen as previously explained, and points 2-4 are pure violence and authoritarianism. This is fascism levels of violence and tyranny. His idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is flawed as well because of the way he framed it. He wants the proletariat to rule with an iron fist as a collective, however, that's not really feasible. You would need to have something like a one party state that "acts on the behalf of the workers" to make it work... which is what the Soviet Union went with as it's the most obvious implementation of such an idea... and that ended up being a disaster. While the ideology does leave room for interpretation, all the attempts of Marxism ended up being authoritarian. This is not a coincidence, it's an integral part of the ideology.
You can read the full critique here btw:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think it’s somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
This is a pretty disingenuous take. The type of authority that Marx wished for is not anywhere near the realm of reasonable. It's silly to try and present this false dichotomy between tyranny and pure anarchy. What's interesting is that Marxism wanted both of these extremes at different stages of his ideology, but not anything in the middle. It's like that man was allergic to anything that wasn't extreme.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everything… Is there an ideology that doesn’t declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Perhaps I worded myself poorly there. When you look at the more pragmatic ideologies around, you'll notice that they don't have enemies that define the ideology. Take for example, modern day social democracy. Who are it's enemies? It doesn't really have any. The ideology is more focused on specific values and approaches to issues rather than trying to define an enemy group as the root cause of everything. The same goes for liberalism. You could say that the ideology views monarchies in such a light, but that's only true in a historical sense. Monarchies are mostly no more, but the ideology is still alive despite that. This is because this is another ideology that doesn't really have enemies, it's revolves around approach and adherence to a few principles.
It's not as core to the ideology as it is to radical ideologies Marxism or islam or Nazism or anarchism. islam as an ideology revolves around fighting the nonbelievers because they are ignorant sinners, Nazism revolves around killing all the Jews because they control everything, Marxism revolves around eradicating the bourgeoisie because they're the cause of everything wrong with society, anarchy revolves around blaming the state or any kind of authority for all the problems in the world. Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out? These radical ideologies wouldn't function without their perceived enemy, while pragmatic ideologies can. Marxism without it's hatred of the bourgeoisies used to justify a lot of it's unpleasant elements is a pretty hollow ideology.
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
I mean none of these similarities are exclusive to Marxism or Fascism, they're all found in a lot of different ideologies. Their similarity stems for their aggregate commonalities.
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Lol individualism in this context doesn't mean having a personality. Collectivism isn't about turning people into identical drones with no personalities, it just means that the well being and cohesion of the collective take precedence over the individual and personal pursuits. That's literally the whole point of Marxism. Both Fascism and Marxism are collectivist ideologies, something like liberalism is individualist.
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence.
It's good to know with power of hindsight that he was wrong on this.
Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didn’t want to “burn down the capitalist system and institutions” actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didn’t think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
You contradicted yourself here. Marx doesn't want a violent overthrow of capitalism because he thought that capitalism was a necessary step to communism, therefore, he just wants a violent overthrow of capitalism to prevent mass violence by using mass violence. This is some grand logic lol
This sounds a lot like “Both involve violence therefore the same” but that’s extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
What you're doing here is extraordinarily reductive. What you're doing here is like trying to equate a paper airplane and a real airplane because they're both technically airplanes that can fly. Marxism and Fascism don't just use violence to maintain control, they view violence as a perfectly acceptable way of achieving political goals. Is there a system you don't like? You violently overthrow it. You have group of dissenters you don't like? You just call them bourgeoise or counterrevolutionaries and kill them all. Are there people who don't want to give up their private property? You go there and violently seize the property by force. You get the idea. This is vastly different than a government having a monopoly of violence to ensure law and order.
-
-
I think someone with a violent streak a mile long even as a child who became fascinated with populist revolutionary ideologies creating a new populist revolutionary ideology does not really make it inherently twinsies with previous populist revolutionary ideologies other than that they are both exactly that. I think it's pretty clear in hindsight that what Mussolini was really interested in was gaining power in a populist revolution, no matter the cost or method.
Obviously, with the power of hindsight, we can see that Mussolini didn't end up being the socialist that he was in his early days. However, it's still interesting to the influences of Marxism on Fascism as an ideology. They do share a lot of characteristics despite their many differences. This is why the claim that these two ideologies are polar opposites isn't true. They're different? Sure. Polar opposites? Not exactly.
I'm not sure you know what Marxism or Fascism are... I think you just think everyone who doesn't think like you is pure evil.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isn't communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that aren't the owning class too... What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But there's scale and scope as well; the American gov't, by and large, hasn't been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents don't tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We don't arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We haven't had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Yes... No argument with that part.
Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns there's more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian "communism" as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. They're pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didn't believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very "left" leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, I'm not even a communist, I'm just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didn't stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
-
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
-
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
-
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that won't ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. That's why every single Marxist attempt that hasn't failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes we've seen aren't coincidences, they're an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it's implemented down to the letter... and it ain't pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn't some secret, it's pretty well documented.
It’s painfully obvious you’ve never really engaged with Marx’s writings.
Yet I have. Marx shitty writings aren't some holy scripture. He was shitty authoritarian philosopher who poorly analyzed the society he lived in and came up with a shitty ideology that failed in both theory and practice. Everything that I said comes from his works. If you have actual criticism then voice them otherwise don't waste my time.
Okay then tell me, what have you actually read by the guy? Everything you’ve said just tells that at best you skimmed the Communist Manifesto without the patience or curiosity to understand why Marx wrote it and the context under which it was written. You seem so ready and willing to casually dismiss him even though his work is foundational to much of modern sociology right alongside Max Weber.
- A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, "Capitalist Institutions" being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
- The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being "authoritarian" is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase "iron fist" is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase "by any means necessary," it's just fearmongering.
- Actually realize communism
Sure, this is correct.
Since step 3 is a utopia that won't ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two.
That's unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isn't an impossibility but it also isn't a utopia like you claim. It's certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
That's why every single Marxist attempt that hasn't failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government "deciding" to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
All the tyrannical regimes we've seen aren't coincidences, they're an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it's implemented down to the letter... and it ain't pretty.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between "tyrannical" and "fair and democratic?" Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn't some secret, it's pretty well documented.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them "why are you hitting yourself". No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy it's functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasn't, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people aren't Marxists.
Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but it's a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. That's not a billionaire, that's an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people aren't going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You can't just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. That's if they cooperate, what if they don't? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well it's simple, if they resist then they're counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Thirdly, “Capitalist Institutions” being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in it's own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the "repressive" institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the "ideological" institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because that's what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way that's possible is via direct democracy but that's not feasible in any society that's not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because that's the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by it's nature, it's safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America.
That is not what is found in America. If you're trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if you're trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then you're off the rails.
The idea of it being “authoritarian” is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isn't democracy, that's tyranny.
The phrase “iron fist” is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase “by any means necessary,” it’s just fearmongering.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because you're a Marxist doesn't invalidate their use here.
That’s unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isn’t an impossibility but it also isn’t a utopia like you claim. It’s certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where there's no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias aren't realistic you can't have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. There's a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You can't run societies off of fantasies.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government “deciding” to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and it's institutions... and that doesn't happen. Governments don't give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and "wither away". Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce it's laws, courts to uphold it's laws, the military to protect it, it's own media to promote it, and so on.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between “tyrannical” and “fair and democratic?” Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Ah yes, we're running socities based off of vibes. I'm sure those 40 to 80 million Chinese who were murdered under Mao were totally not vibing with his tyrannical Marxism. Do you even hear yourself? Governments don't exist in a binary states of tyrannical and free, the levels of authoritarianism exist in a spectrum. But the levels of tyranny and freedom are measurable, and we do have stats for them. But even if there weren't it really easy to tell the difference between the extremes. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that New Zealand and Norway are free and democratic countries while Iran and North Korea are tyrannical. All Marxist attempts have been on the more extreme end of tyranny than anywhere near the free and democratic end.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
This doesn't disprove my point. Whether Allende took power democratically or by force, the result was going to be the same. So no, Marx and Engles were not right. Not to mention, that the cold war wasn't just the US, the USSR was the other superpower who was also overthrowing governments, starting civil wars, invading countries, and so on. The only difference is that history proved that capitalist societies to be more resilient.
This is like a bully punching their victim and then telling them "why are you hitting yourself". No, a violent revolution is an integral part of Marxism. No society is going to destroy it's functioning system willingly. Even if capitalism failed, which it hasn't, Marxism is not the logical replacement. Literally only Marxists believe that it is, and most people aren't Marxists.
Marxism is not destroying a system, but replacing it and moving beyond. Capitalism is failing and continues to see increased disparity over time.
Killing the bourgeoisie is not a step, but it's a pretty implicit part of process. Under his class definition, somebody like a lawyer owning their own firm and hiring a couple secretaries makes them a part of the bourgeoise. That's not a billionaire, that's an average person who made good choices in their life. The same goes for someone who owns their own convivence store and hires a couple of part timers. These type of people aren't going to give up their livelihoods in the name of some brain dead ideology. Why would they? So what the Marxist solution for this? You can't just let these people be because the ideology revolves around total control of a society. If people can opt out of Marxism then most people would and the ideology would collapse. The only viable solution is to forcefully seize their life work. That's if they cooperate, what if they don't? What if they resist Marxist tyranny? Well it's simple, if they resist then they're counterrevolutionaries who ought to be killed.
Petite bourgeoisie have more to gain under Socialism than they would under Capitalism, typically. Secondly, managing to be a lawyer with a firm is not simply "a good choice," it takes luck and a safety net that allows for that. The idea that most people would opt out of Socialism is historically inaccurate as well. All in all, you're deeply goofy here.
Marx thought of the state as tool of the ruling class, which is a very flawed view in it's own right, but I digress. In his view, the institutions of the state, aka the state apparatus, are all tools used by bourgeoisie to maintain class domination. He had the state apparatus split into two categories, the first is the "repressive" institutions such as the government, police, courts, and military and the second is the "ideological" institutions like schools, media, churches, etc. If a Marxist revolution were to happen all these institutions, ranging from a state run university all the way to the supreme court would be on the chopping block. The job of a government is maintain the status quo, the job of the police is to enforce the current laws, the job of the courts is to uphold the current laws, the job of the military to protect all these institutions from existential threats. Perhaps not all of them will be literally burnt down, but the point remains that the ultimate goal of Marxism is to get rid of these institutions all together because that's what communism seeks to establish, a stateless society.
You're inserting your own conclusions here, yet again. These instutitions would be removed or replaced, sure, but not firebombed. You can see historical Marxist revolutions to know that wasn't accurate.
Calling it democratic is a pretty big stretch because the idea itself is flawed. Marx wanted the proletariat to be directly involved in the decision making process but also have the decision making process be centralized. The only way that's possible is via direct democracy but that's not feasible in any society that's not on the scale of a small tribe. The alternative would be to do it by representative democracy, which would mean a one party dictatorship similar to the CPSU or the CCP.
Representative democracy is still democracy, I cannot believe you are genuinely suggesting otherwise.
Why a one party dictatorship? Because that's the only way it would work in this context. A Marxist revolution will never be a result of civil unrest, it will always be a result of a political faction trying takeover the government. That faction will have leaders who will lead the violent revolution. That faction will become dictatorship of the proletariat. Since politics is divisive by it's nature, it's safer for the revolution for that faction to claim to be the one and only legitimate one and all other attempts are counterrevolutionary. That way they get to enjoy all the power, silence dissents, avoid civil war or coups, and implement all the tyrannical policies as they see fit.
Oh, more historical inaccuracy. Marxist revolutions have been because of civil unrest, which is why they were supported by the mahority of people. Secondly, you're asserting that a party cannot be controlled democratically by the general public, and that the general public cannot enter the party, which is also wrong.
That is not what is found in America. If you're trying to be fictitious and hyperbolic then okay I guess, but if you're trying to pass this off as some sort of fact then you're off the rails.
America is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise as described by Marx. The state is run by parties that are nearly entirely funded by wealthy Capitalists, with media funded by wealthy Capitalists that manufacture consent in the general public. This is basic Marxism here, not understanding what Marx meant has been a core issue with your entire argument.
Democratic for who exactly? Take the US as an example. Around 66% of Americans are homeowners. Around 58% own stocks. About 17 million own their own business. Around 99.9% of businesses in the country are small businesses which employ around 46% of the workforce, 80% of those are mom and pop business that have 0-9 employees (a good chunk of which are family members). All these people and many more are going to be quite pissed to have their property seized. Putting the majority of society in a worse position by force isn't democracy, that's tyrann
Democratic for the people. Owning stocks doesn't make you bourgeois, neither does owning your home. Petite bourgeoisie are suppressed by larger bourgeoisie into the proletariat.
Secondly, the idea that the average worker with a 401k would be upset to not have to worry about saving for retirement ever again, with higher wages and free healthcare, education, and shorter work weeks is silly.
Both of those phrases are perfectly accurate descriptions of the proposed transitional government. You simply not liking them because you're a Marxist doesn't invalidate their use here.
"It's accurate because I say it is."
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is a utopia by definition. It is an imaginary society where everything works perfectly. Communism is about a perfect society where there's no money, no state, no exploitation, no classes, no scarcity, no property, no disagreements on the idea of common ownership, an abundance of everything that will be distributed accordingly from ability to need, and everybody gets to hold hands while they dance, singe, and fart rainbows. Marx and Engles, and their followers can pretend that their utopia is not like the other girls all they want, but it ultimately is. Utopias aren't realistic you can't have a perfect or near perfect society in a non perfect world. There's a reason why these brain dead utopia driven ideologies always fail while more pragmatic ideologies always succeed. You can't run societies off of fantasies.
You're certainly adding on a lot of shit that Communists have never suggested. Communism would have scarcity, public property, disagreements on ideas, and more. You're correct in saying it would no longer have the oppressive elements of the state, nor would it have Money or classes, but the way that works is via tracking labor inputs and outputs. Marx makes it pretty clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme. You added on a bunch of unsupported baggage and said your fantasy version of a proposed society can't exist.
In order for that to happen, the government has to actively work on dismantling itself and it's institutions... and that doesn't happen. Governments don't give up their power. The communist utopia will always be just right around the corner, but never actually there. Also Marx defines the government as one of the institutions in the state apparatus, which would eventually get dismantled and "wither away". Even if there was a government under communism, it literally cannot function without the other institutions of the state like the police to enforce it's laws, courts to uphold it's laws, the military to protect it, it's own media to promote it, and so on.
No, government does not need to actively work on dismantling their institutions. Withering away does not mean the government eating parts of itself. Redundant systems get phased out over time in the modern day all the time. Communism would have police, courts, and so forth as well.
-
And where will you be? Standing on the sidelines letting it happen, or will you be the one to pull the trigger?
probably getting shot for not wearing enough religious flair. Any half decent strategist knows you only choose the quick path when you have overwhelming power.
I would encourage Fascists and Marxist to destroy each other so the world can finally be free of these two parasitic ideologies.
I know right, neoliberalism is utopia. /s
Sure beats Marxism and Fascism
Sure beats Marxism and Fascism
Rich... considering it's coming from somebody who understands neither.
There's a 100% chance that I know more about than you... You know since I've actually studied both in college. But I'm sure an armchair professor such yourself with a PhD from Lemmy's echo chambers knows better than my professors.
You know since I’ve actually studied both in college.
Which college was that? Prager U, maybe?
If you did, you'd actually sound as if you knew anything about the subject matter at hand.
But you don't - which means you didn't.
Which college was that?
Nope, a respected public University in New England.
If you did, you’d actually sound as if you knew anything about the subject matter at hand.
Your entire argument here boils down to "nuh-uh", which is absolutely meaningless. If you have actual criticisms then stop beating around the bush and get on with it. Otherwise, I have no interest in whatever this is.
a respected public University in New England.
Oh really? A "respected public University in New England" taught you to think like a cheap Tucker Carlson knock-off?
Do tell... does this "respected public University in New England" do refunds?
I hope for your part they do.
How?
It's killing us slower?
Well it's quite simple really, you have three choices:
Fascism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.
Marxism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.
Neoliberalism: A very flawed ideology that takes economic freedom to an extreme and puts too much faith in unregulated free markets.
Sounds like a no brainer choice to me.
Broad generalizations, I can’t argue against that. Defeated by vaguery again.
You can't argue, period. Marxism can't be argued for on its own merits. It needs fallacies, enemies, violence, and censorship to keep itself from collapsing.
What merits does Marxism have? What fallacies, enemies, violence and censorship does it use to keep from collapsing?
Your biases are showing, honey.
Good, I'm very biased against failed tyrannical ideologies.
So no good reason to listen to anything you have to say, got it.
You don't listen to anything that's not from your echo chambers in the first place. If you weren't a closed minded moron, you wouldn't be a Marxist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
If you want to see Marxism in China then look no further than Maoist China. That was true socialism implemented down to the letter... And it was one of the biggest disasters in human history.
Yeah no shit it was because of the reforms the socialists implemented that they were able to eradicate poverty, not sure how that's supposed to help your point.
Life expectancy nearly doubled while Mao was in power. that's not "one of the biggest disasters in human history," it was the single greatest improvement in quality of life on such a large scale in such a short time period ever.
Yeah no shit it was because of the reforms the socialists implemented that they were able to eradicate poverty, not sure how that’s supposed to help your point.
Do you even understand what the reforms were?
Life expectancy nearly doubled while Mao was in power. that’s not “one of the biggest disasters in human history,” it was the single greatest improvement in quality of life on such a large scale in such a short time period ever.
Mao killed somewhere between 40 million and 80 million people during his 27 year reign. He is widely considered to be the person responsible for the highest death toll in human history. The Great Leap Forward by itself is estimated to have somewhere between 15 million to 55 million deaths. The Great Chinese famine is the biggest famine ever recorded and is one of the worst anthropogenic disasters in human history. This is not the hill you should die on.