• C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    @Cowbee
    The goal of communism is equality and anti-hierarchy, quite literally the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, and resources are distributed according to need. True equality and freedom for all individuals is the goal, where everyone can contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Again, I am going to recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme.

      Marx specifically states that humans are not equal, else they would not be different, and thus have unequal needs and abilities. It is because of this that the goal is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” This quote specifically comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme.

      Hierarchy is unjust if it is in contradiction, if it is through a worker state it ceases to be unjust, and merely becomes what must be done. Engels elaborates on this im On Authority.

      Marx was not an Anarchist, he was accepting of administration and a gradual buildup towards Communism.

      • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        @Cowbee
        Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I’ve read it and I don’t agree with it. I disagree with Marx’s emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You could’ve said that from the start, that you aren’t a Marxist.

          I don’t believe you can say that Marxism is a betrayal of Communism any more than you can say Anarchism is a betrayal of Marxism. If your entire point is that Marxist societies were not authentically Anarchist, then I am not sure why we are having this conversation. It’s both obvious and silly.

          • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            @Cowbee
            Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it’s not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There’s no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.

              I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).

              • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                @Cowbee
                I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn’t been given a proper chance so it’s impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of…

                • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  @Cowbee
                  …authoritarian states that were anything but communist and all but a handful of them still exist, the rest collapsing due to various reasons.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.

                    I believe by “Libertarian Communism” you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marx’s descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.

                    Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.