Left unity
deleted by creator
Just don’t be a MAGA Communist, or one of those weird trad white people shits
Fuck Jackson Hinkle.
Oh god, that’s an image I can’t unimagine… 🫠
not going to judge what turns you on
Noooooo 🫠 not like that…
deleted by creator
Communism stateless anti authoritarian? Are we not confused with Anarchism?
The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish the state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm
What does “Commune” entail in this context?
A Commune, in Marxist-Leninist theory, is a revolutionary political-economic structure where the proletariat collectively owns and democratically controls the means of production, abolishing capitalist hierarchies and bourgeois state machinery. It is rooted in the analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871 by Marx and Engels who saw it as a prototype of proletarian dictatorship. The key aspect of a commune is that it embodies direct workers’ democracy, dismantling the separation between state and society. Lenin further expanded this as a transitional framework where a decentralized network of soviets composed of laborers self-govern, eroding class distinctions and advancing toward a stateless, classless communism.
Are there any examples of this ‘late stage Communism’? I thought it was more about the central planning aspect. And if not are the USSR/China/Russia even Communist?
Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn’t existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.
Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.
If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn’t one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.
It’s an ideological competition between different ways of organizing society. We have a western model of capitalist organization and the socialist model advanced by China. The western model is visibly failing in every regard right now, so there is every reason to expect that more and more countries will look to Chinese model as a result.
deleted by creator
See my comment here.
You better not be sending me into recursion when I click this
Lmao, I’ve tried to minimize my copy-pasting of comments over time so there’s more links in my comments now, haha.
I’m clicking all the “read my other comment” links until I’ve basically read Capital Vol. 1 in its entirety through Lemmy posts.
deleted by creator
I swear every time I read some commie stuff I get halfway and it starts referencing other stuff which I click and then I get halfway and then it references something else and suddenly I’m reading critiques from 1800
Lol. If we didn’t do that then we would get accused of not including our sources. But i get your point, sometimes we can tend to be overly thorough.
I view this as being a bit like mathematics. The things we say make sense to someone who is already versed in the subject but for someone who doesn’t already understand or agree with certain concepts or ideas we don’t necessarily want to rehash arguments that were already laid out in works a hundred years prior so we just refer back to those in the same way that when you do modern mathematics you don’t need to repeat proofs that were already done in the 19th century. You can just take those theorems as given and if you are really interested in how they were derived you can still go back to the original literature and read up on it.
Of course you can still engage with and understand the more advanced arguments even without going all the way back to the basics but then you need to accept certain things as axiomatic, because it would take too much time to go back and explain them every time.
Let’s say for instance that we are talking about imperialism. To clarify what exactly we mean when we talk about imperialism we may briefly give the Leninist definition of imperialism. You can either accept that this is the definition or you can ask why. Why is it defined that way and why does it make sense? Well for that you would have to go and read Lenin’s work on Imperialism. Which in turn references but does not necessarily thoroughly explain certain concepts about the nature of capitalism that were worked out earlier by Marx.
You see, you can either choose to go down this rabbit hole and invest the time it takes to really go to the basics and build up from there, or you can take it as given that this has already been worked out and you can try and understand how we apply it to the modern day, which saves time and is more practical. Neither is wrong, it just depends on your personal interest.
The end goal of Communism is for what we know as “the state” to wither away as peoples of all nations learn to function together. Each state that exists currently must choose Socialism. Be it revolution with words and actions, or by a armed uprising to force out those that refuse to stop supporting the dictatorship of the bourgeois.
All acts of revolution are an exertion of authority/will over what exists. Anarchists believe (at least very generally speaking, but I will yield my own lack of understanding) that “the state” should go away from the jump. Which from a Communist or non-anarcho versions of Socialism/Communism perspective doesn’t work at the scale of whole nations that we have. Especially while the bulk of everyday people still need things they already know or need to function as they learn to place peoples’ needs over profits. Being fair, this mass learning is crucial for all versions of anti-capitalist/imperialist political spectrum.
Though I can see how real dedicated Anarchists that hold the revolutionary spirit and the will to put in the very hard work could happen in smaller scales. Like in getting folks in rural areas to collectivize various farms to grow and rotate crops and everyone that can contribute work/resources. Or in small towns where everyone already kind of knows everyone to some level. Small towns with lots of rural areas around them would be like the best option of course.
Why is the NK flag here?
because DPRK is an existing socialist state
missed him on the meme.
