You're viewing a single thread.
No, theyre marxist-leninists. Basically, unironic communists.
who are, ironically, not communist
Marx wasnt a communist? Ive heard a lot of "not true communism" takes, but thats a new one.
Probably because you haven't read much on the subject. Marxist theory speculated on how societies and economies could transition into communism. He and others created the philosophy and Concepts involving it. But were not communist strictly speaking. At least not in anything other than the state of the individual.
Engles, and Lenin mistakenly thought that by replacing the authority and power of the wealthy with their own people. That they themselves would not fall to the corruption of power. And eventually over time the authoritarian state would somehow magically wither and die. Leaving them with a classless stateless society. Keep that in mind that is important for understanding whether something is communist or not.
Was Russia classless or stateless? No Russia was a state. And they had plenty of different classes. ML never eliminated that. In fact all the current Russian oligarchs have direct ties back to the political Elite of Soviet russia. And instead of transitioning into a communist Society they've transitioned into fascism.
Now let's look at china. Is China a state? Yes. Not communist then. Are there different classes of people in china? Yes not communist then. Their claim on even socialism is somewhat tenuous at best. But they are definitely not communist. And at this rate will never transition into communism. Xi Jinping has moved into the Emperor's Palace and is all but Emperor in name only at this point. He and his wealthy friends will never relinquish power to transition to communism. They will stay as they are until he dies. And then there will be a power vacuum. There may be some in fighting but someone will replace him and China will continue on until there there is another Revolution to replace the failed Communist Revolution that put them in power. Are they transition into open fascism as well.
I saw this explanation a long time ago on reddit, and Im stealing it.
There are two types of communism. The communism in theory and communism as practiced.
Most people talk about communism as practiced. Think the USSR, China, Argentina, Cuba, any "state capitalism" country. This is how any attempt at communism will end. This is due tobthe fact that there isnt a mechanism to go from the tyranny of the proles to true communism, so you get stuck in tyranny.
Youre talking about communism the theory. Communism the theory can not exist. Its fine to discuss it, but saying that communism the theory is the only true communism is just being obtuse and/or disingenuous.
They talk about it like that because that is how the propaganda both Pro and against talk about it. The fact is Soviet Russia and China started out basically as forms of marxist leninism. They aspired to be communist but weren't. But they loved the word. And used it a lot. It's like Nazis having socialist in the name. It didn't make them socialist.
Practicing communists? Look towards communes. They are the only groups actually practicing communism. Whether they were the hippie communes Bohemian communes etc. Those are what communism in general would look like. Not explicitly but overall. Each commune is its own group that governs itself but could cooperate with similar outside groups. Soviet Russia and China were never communist in any sense.
This is where people mess up when they judge the past in the eyes of the present. Communism in Marx' time had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, Mao or China.
Around the first French Revolution there were only a few historical examples of democracy and all of them (including the French Revolution) reverted to monarchy. (Putting aside also that those states governed many who did not get a vote due to gender, colonization, and slave status).
Online edgelords at the time might have thought monarchy is the only system that can work and democracy only works in theory.
Question: Do you think that stateless and classless society is sustainable and won't evolve into a regular one?
In terms of modern ideological dogmaticism? No. Pragmatically I think it's possible to get very close. History has proven that. "Class" has never been a necessary construct. It's always negative, hurtful, and exclusionary. Statewise, it's always been more against nation state and to smaller extents even city-states. Large overarching structures. Keep in mind I'm coming out this from an actual Dejacque libertarian / anarco communist leftist perspective. Governance isn't the enemy. Just large overpowerful bodies with concentrated power.
I think it's possible to get very close
My problem with this, is that organized groups have always advantage over disorganized groups, whether in crime or in legit manufacturing/services. You have neverending growth of these groups into social classes. The closer you want to get to classless society, the harder and more oppressive you have to go against that social phenomena. And I've never seen a good explanation who would enforce the laws keeping the society close to that "classless" state
My problem with that is that it isn't about disorganization. That is a fundamental and widely perpetuated piece of misinformation about what anarchism / communism actually are. Anarchists can organize just fine. Now if what you want to argue is that detached highly concentrated power is capable of ordering atrocities and enforcing people to commit the atrocities in their name? Then yes they absolutely have the advantage. But in terms of actually doing the business of the people and governing. No there is no advantage. In fact it's often a disadvantage. Being insulated from the needs of those they govern and the effects of the poor policy they put in place. It's antithetical to good government.
Anarchists can organize just fine.
Organized anarchism isn't anarchism anymore.
Now if what you want to argue is that detached highly concentrated power is capable of ordering atrocities and enforcing people to commit the atrocities in their name? Then yes they absolutely have the advantage.
I'm not talking about just the atrocities. I'm talking bare economic efficiency - bunch of organized people are doing things faster and with lower amount of effort - and they will inevitably use that advantage to increase their standards of living. Suddenly you have an inequality.
Of course this issue encompasses also efficiency of criminal activity - organized crime pays more than not organized crime.
But the end result in both cases is the same - some people are better off than others
In short I strictly disagree with the statement:
in terms of actually doing the business of the people and governing. No there is no advantage.
Organized anarchism isn't anarchism anymore.
It is a literal organizational structure. Just a very flat one. You are using a colloquial malapropism. Not the actual definition/understanding of the ideology.
I'm not talking about just the atrocities. I'm talking bare economic efficiency
Economic efficiency is literal atrocity. Which is more economically efficient. To responsibly extract resources and pay fair value for it. Or to oppress and steal to obtain resources? Cobalt mining in the Congo as it exists, exists because of economic efficiency. It is advantageous and efficient for the company's buying it that there is no government power there to oppose them. Instead buying from Regional Warlords and child slaves mining it. They don't have to worry about safety regulations etc etc etc or any other externalities of the mining actions. Very efficient. Also an atrocity.
Anarchism is about consent. People can consent to organize. There's nothing prohibiting it. Is it quicker or easier to organize people without their consent by force? Absolutely. Is it good? That's the argument you're making. Might makes right. Brutal, authoritarian dictatorship is very efficient, economic and otherwise. There's a reason people don't like it.
I suggest you actually look into what the ideology of anarchism is. And not just go with the pop culture/ angsty teen definition.
You're conflating organization and collaboration with oppression and hierarchy. It's not "no rules" it's "no rulers" and likewise you don't get your anarchism membership revoked when you hold the door open for someone.
In fact, anarchists are very much about collectivism over individualism. No one is free until everyone is free.
Lenin isn't Marxism. Stalin isn't Marxism. Mao isn't Marxism. Tankies aren't Marxism. Marx would have thought nothing good of China and Russia. Marxist Leninists idolize Mao and Stalin. They think police states are the bees' knees
"socialism with Chinese characteristics" (the "Chinese characteristics" are capitalism)
Marx also wasn’t Marxist; that distinction belonged to Engels & co.
And real communism isn't communism XD
Tbf to your first example, if .ml "stands for" marxist-leninist, I'm not sure lenin is a prime example lol.
I think the meaning is that the Lemmy.ml fascists aren't actually communist.
Oh, that makes much more sense. Thanks!
Of course Marx wasn't a communist. He was a Marxist. Duh.
"What is certain is that if they are Marxists, then I myself am not a Marxist"
– Karl Marx
How do you not know? He literally wrote a book about not to be a communist called The MaNOfest of the ComunNOst Party.
Communism is a form of government based on Marxist ideas about how economic power works. But the two are not one and the same thing. You could say that Naziism is specific movement that was based on racism. But we all know the two words have distinct meanings and are not entirely interchangeable, intimate though their relationship may be.
A lot of it isn't actually communists, but a facade for spreading authoritarian propaganda.
This is true. As long as a country declares itself to be economically left, they will defend every single authoritarian action and human rights abuse. Doesn't matter if the reality is that the state capitalist country produces hundreds of billionaires. Any claim of leftist economics and they will defend anything it does. It's clear they love defending authoritarianism more than they like leftist economics.
they love defending authoritarianism more than they like leftist economics.
They're not paid to like leftist economics.
🙄 there are communist countries that are not Russia or China, just like there are capitalist countries that aren't the United States.
Of course, and neither Russia nor China are communist.
True