Cowbee

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Change comes from outside the ballot box. Vote for Biden, sure, but join and support the ongoing protests forcing his hand currently. Historically, meaningful change has come from collective action.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

You're on Lemmy, what leftists call a liberal refers to the economic philosophy of liberalism, ie pro-Capitalism. Leftists do not use liberal to refer to leftists like the average American does.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

The audience is Lemmy, most people here are leftists. Specifically, this is Lemmy.ml, which has many Marxists.

People here generally understand it how I described liberalism.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

lemmy.world

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

The bear discourse is the true measure of whether a given man is a red or green flag.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Yes, that's my point. The response to the bear discourse reveals red or green flags.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I do, lol.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Have you spoken to women about it?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

VLC the undisputed champ

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Average anticommunist

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Billionaires are a subset of the bourgeoisie. Eliminating class distinctions eliminates the existence of billionaires.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

No, you're attempting to ignore the importance of class dynamics. Marxism is not a thing of the past, murdering the billionaires and puttinh a billionaire tax is a toothless bandaid.

You speak nothing of structure and only of outcome, which will only perpetuate said problems.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Nah, you're dangerously wrong and ignoring what causes billionaires in the first place. You're not looking at things materially.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

No, lol.

You came in saying my thinking was "dangerous and outdated" without clearly addressing why, and presented a toothless bandaid solution that would get rolled back immediately after, because you don't address the power dynamics involved.

You only want to treat symptoms but can't treat the cause.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Bourgeoisie - Boarzh-wah-zee

Borgeois - bourzh-wah

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

There are going to be Communists on a platform made by a Communist along Communist principles.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Why are you on Lemmy then?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Except the structure being Communist, or the devs being communists?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Is it propaganda, or is it just likely that Communists would be on a Communist site?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Why?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

That isn't a point, lol. Communism has support all over the globe, and far more in poorer countries.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

I made up none of what I said, and you engaged with none of it either. I addressed everything you said, to which you plugged your ears.

You're clearly not trying to have a discussion, just sound off on your opinion.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Yea, more dodging, and nothing to go off of. Way to never respond to any of my points or counterpoints, lol

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Good night 😘

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.

How do you believe Marx envisaged administration?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

It necessitates global Socialism to be achieved, as Capitalism stands against Socialism. The military cannot be done away with as long as there is Capitalism. Moving into Comminism without completing the negation of the negation, in dialectical-speak, is a mechanical transition that leaves the Socialist state open to invasion and plundering.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

The persistance of money and wages did not stand against the progress of Socialism. Again, Capitalist profit was eliminated, the state directed the products of labor, not Capitalists. Marx was not an Anarchist, he did not believe money could be done away with immediately. The USSR attempted to do away with Money, but were not yet developed enough to handle it.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Statelessness comes after Socialism's contradictions have been eliminated. You are anarchist-washing Marx here.

I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. The goal of Communism is not equality! Instead, the goal is proving from everyone's abilities to everyone's needs.

Anti-hierarchy is not Marxist, but Anarchist.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Yes, there was corruption. The USSR was of course imperfect, but this is not sufficient to say it was a betrayal of Communist ideals.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

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.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

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.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Yes, which is and has been practiced in AES countries. Just because higher-stage Communism, ie a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society hasn't been reached globally yet doesn't mean we don't know if it will work or not.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

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).

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

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.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

So what's the difference between Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism?

Either way, you're being extremely vague. Communism is impossible in one country, it must be global, and as such it must be protected. What length of time is enough to suggest a Socialist state has "failed?" What metrics determine AES countries have "failed?" How quickly must they achieve global communism to be a success? These are rhetorical questions, you don't have to answer them all, but they do point out more of your idealism, rather than materialism.

Secondly, and the question I do want an answer to, what method do you believe can succeed in a measurably more successful way? Simply stating Libertarian Communism isn't truly sufficient, as you have already said, Libertarian Communism has never once lasted more than a couple years, in Catalonia, or in Primitive times.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

I believe at that point you are making a semantical argument on what is considered centralized vs decentralized, and what is and isn't a state. A fully unified army of similar power would defeat a decentralized army, which necessitates some level of democratic centralism, by which point you have a state. Additionally, how do you see abolishing money while being invaded by Capitalist neighbors, as has happened to all AES countries?

I don't believe Anarchism is more likely to succeed than Marxism in establishing Communism.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

I believe this is just vibes-based analysis that dismisses what has materially been seen when attempted in real life. I won't say that Anarcho-Communism isn't more beautiful of an idea, but I also don't believe it to be practical at the scale required to defend a revolution from outside aggressors.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

This was tried and lasted merely 2 years in Catalonia before more organized millitaries handily beat the Anarchists. The strength of worker-movements lies in unity, not individualism. A strong sense of solidarity is nice, but ideals cannot beat proper organization.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Of course they faced numerous other issues, my point is that it seems that by holding to their ideals over what is practicible, they opened themselves up to failure.

On theory vs practice, it is important to test theory against practice and adapt theory to fit practice. What remains beautiful in theory must be measured by its practicality.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

What evidence do you have in support of this, other than idealism and vibes?

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Ideas do not create reality. Unity through organization is a proven concept resistant to outside forces.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

You were idealistically stating that more decentralization would have helped the Anarchists despite material evidence to the contrary. Hierarchy is not a bad thint, unjust hierarchy is.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

1. Hierarchy does not perpetuate inequality, accumulation does. Hierarchy without accumulation and democratically accountable does not perpetuate inequality.

2. A decentralized system is not necessarily better at addressing systems of inequality or oppression.

3. Decentralized or Centralized makes no difference on creating a classless society.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Hierarchy is not an accumulation of power, but authority vested in individuals. Democratically accountable, there isn't anything inherently wrong with it.

Additionally, inequality is not an enemy of Communism. Communism is about providing for everyone and giving everyone a dignified life, not about making everyone equal. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" inherently accepts inequality of circumstances and outcomes as acceptable as long as everyone's needs are met, which is impossible in the contradiction of Capitalism.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Accumulation means increasing, it does not mean static power vested democratically. Capitalists accumulate via an endless cycle of M-C-M', which in turn swallows everything else. Elected representatives can be recalled, and even if they never are, they do not infinitely profit off the labor of others.

Please explain how "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" implies the goal is equality, and not satisfying the needs of everyone. Equality is idealist, satisfying needs is materialist. Marx explains precisely what he means:

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

If anything, you are the revisionist, promoting half of Critique of the Gotha Programme and rejecting the half that isn't Anarchism-friendly.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Yep, the "worst" is Anarchist-washing Marx in my experience.

Cowbee , vor 2 Monaten

Why do you believe Northern European countries have it better than AES countries? Do you believe if an AES country copied the Northern European model, their metrics would match Northern European countries?

Why do you believe inequality is rising in Northern European countries and safety nets are being cut over time?