Cowbee

I'm arguing for academic analysis of self-proclaimed Marxists.

China is Socialist. It practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over a Market Economy. The CPC is Communist by ideology, but of course they haven't achieved Communism yet, nor do they claim to. They tried to directly implement Communism under Mao and later under the Gang of Four, which ended up being a critical error in judgement as the Means of Production were not at all developed enough for it, hence the Gang of Four claiming it was "better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism."

The USSR was Socialist. They never achieved Communism, largely due to refusing to interlock with the rest of the world economy. While they managed to provide many critical necessities like healthcare, education, and so forth for free, shutting out the global market led to consumer jealousy over consumer commodities from the west, which led to democratically instating liberal market reforms, which worked against the centralized nature of the economy, leading to its dissolution.

I won't reply to all that because you've either moved the goalposts or misunderstood my original point.

How can you say that without responding? It seems like you ignored what I wrote, with careful, direct references to Marx and Engels. If I am going to put in the effort of taking everything you said into consideration and responding to the best of my abilities, the least you can do is acknowledge it honestly, not dissavow my efforts entirely. I haven't undermined your ability to understand what I am talking about, nor accused you of moving the goal posts, so I'd like respect in kind.

Tankies are quintessentially authoritarian. That's what I've been saying since the beginning. I agree that Marx doesn't advocate for it, which is why I suggested he'd be repelled by tankies.

You've been saying this without qualifiers. Advocating for "authoritarianism" isn't a thing, hence Engels writing On Authority to debunk the very subject entirely. You have yet to meaningfully prove that Communists advocate for a different system and a different process than what Marx and Engels did. Saying that Communists advocate for "authoritarianism" doesn't mean anything, what structures do Communists advocate for that go against Marx?

I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, and they doubled down. Oh well.

Peak liberalism, lmao. Even when I ask for a critique, I can't get any.

He constantly frames things vis-a-vis the freedom of workers and their having input in their government. Does that sound like China to you, or Cambodia under the Khmer?

How, exactly, does he frame them? Can you give an example? China practices Whole Process People's Democracy, which absolutely isn't liberal democracy, but does have more worker participation than Capitalist states.

As for Cambodia, the Khmer denounced Marx and were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists, no Communist supports the Khmer Rouge. No, what Marx described was not adopted by Cambodia, because the Khmer Rouge denounced Marx.

Sure, but what he didn't advocate for is for a new form of aristocracy to emerge from within workers' ranks. I think this was Bakunin, not Marx, but the dangers of "labour aristocracy" were already known at the time.

You're confused on a few things here, the Labor Aristocracy is the Proletariat that makes more than the median wages in the global context due to the impacts of Imperialism, ie in the US median Proletarian wages far exceed that of wages in Chad not because the US Proletariat magically creates more value, but because wages are higher due to vast exploitation of the Global South.

Secondly, there was not a "new form of aristocracy" in AES states. AES presented an increase in democratization, including practices like instant recall elections, and units electing delegates. These delegates weren't hereditary, had to be elected, and could be recalled at any time.

I've read David Harvey's synopsis of Capital (because life is too short to read the whole thing), Gotha, and of course the Manifesto. I'm actually puzzled that you see Gotha as advocating for authoritarianism. He talks about the eradication of class and about how people should not be "ruled". Both of those things are endemic to current-day communism. I just can't imagine that Marx would look at the way the CCP operates and think that was an accurate reflection of his personal politics.

Critique of the Gotha Programme isn't advocating for "authoritarianism," nobody does. Critique of the Gotha Programme advocates for centralization, also alluded to by the "ceasing of the anarchy of Capitalist production." Marx clearly crituques the vagueness of the Gotha Programme in question, along with its flawed conception of the state.

The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.

Engels elaborates in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (itself a phenomenal work that I highly recommend reading after this conversation), what form of government a Communist society would look like as Marx alludes to in Gotha:

When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

You can see that, rather than the anarchy of decentralization, Marx and Engels advocated for centralization. The "centralized" society has no State, but it does have an Administration of Things. Think the Post-Office, and how it still has managers and administrators. These structures remain even into Communism, after Socialism, yet they aren't considered a "state" by Marx nor Engels.

Where, exactly, was the circular logic? Choosing not to read is your right, of course, but if you saw an error in my comment I'd like to know what it is.

Can you elaborate? What "bottom-up" structures did he advocate for, and how, mechanically, do they differ from what modern Communists advocate for?

When I say emerge, I mean it literally. Capitalism emerged from within feudalism with the advent of the steam engine, which allowed for industrialization and mass competition. When Marx advocates for Socialism, he does so on the basis of the Proletariat wresting control from the bourgeoisie via revolution, and maintaining absolute control via the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, just as the bourgeoisie and proletariat together wrested control from the Monarchies.

What have you read from Marx that gives you an alternate impression? Where are you getting the idea that Marx was in favor of decentralization over centralization, when he says the direct opposite clear as day in Critique of the Gotha Programme?

Marx railed against Anarchists because he was in favor of centralization, and believed in Scientific Socialism, rather than Utopian. He believed Socialism to be a stage in development of class society, one that emerges from Capitalism, and not something that can be established outright simply by coming up with a model and spontaneously adopting it. Marx didn't base his views on any such "Overton Window," he would find the concept of that ridiculous.

Why do you say Marx disliked "centralized authoritarianism?" He advocated for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ie a democratic, centralized state, that would wither from a tool to oppress and suppress the bourgeoisie into an administration of things as global Communism is achieved. Critique of the Gotha Programme makes this expressly clear, Marx was in favor of centralization and against decentralization and Anarchism.

As for "authoritarianism," he and Engels were often accused of it, to the point that Engels wrote about the issues with said slander in On Authority.

Marx railed against Anarchists for his entire life, what gives you the impression that he would be an Anarchist today?

Sorry to whom, you or me? What was your goal, exactly, where you think your time was wasted? It's just a Lemmy convo.

No problem. Marxism is pretty difficult for most people to understand entirely without reading far more than you would expect, it isn't simply criticism of Capitalism or advocacy for Socialism and then Communism, but also Dialectical and Historical Materialism, which is where people can easily trip up.

I'm 100% aware of how FPTP works. I understand that if I vote for Claudia De La Crúz instead of Harris, that means Trump is more likely to win. I also know that if I vote for Claudia De La Crúz instead of Trump, that means Harris is more likely to win.

Given that I would never vote for either genocidal entity, I am not "taking away" votes for Harris. She can promise to sanction Israel or otherwise put an end to the genocide, and I would likely pivot to vote for her, as she would have fundamentally changed my single largest issue with her, despite thinking she has awful policy in general. However, this vote would be one she had earned, not regained.