Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Socialism/Communism Discussion Thread

socialism communism Marxism MLM anarchism leftism class war dialectical materialism USSR Stalin

  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#421
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

lfey659jwk3y.jpg


  • caltrek likes this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#422
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭Пришло время для большевистских мемов, товарищ!☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Дразнят грязную и умирающую императрицу буржуев!

JLE66Fv.jpg

 

 

 

Вот, как Императрица-буржуа становится чернорабочим!

nms3ep1.jpg

 

 

Красивая пролетарская императрица ходит ее домашнее животное робот!

V4RHnjn.jpg

 

I have no idea if anything I just typed made sense.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#423
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

I also have to thank my OCD towards Mother Meki for helping me understand what exactly the dictatorship of the proletariat really means. Before last month, I could never quite move past that damn word, "dictatorship". 

But now I understand that it actually means "take the current order, but now reverse it." In America (and, indeed, across the world), we have two bourgeois political parties. They aim to assist the capitalist class more than anything— one just happens to pay lip service to the underclasses from time to time. The proletariat has to choose between these two bourgeois parties that don't represent, deciding which one gets to rule over us. 

In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the same rules apply. It's just that, instead of the two parties representing the bourgeoisie, they represent the proletariat. What few bourgeois there are, thus, have to choose between one of these two proletarian parties to rule over them.

 

Definitely could use a change in phrasing. Just like how I've been raging against the term "lab-grown meat". No one wants lab-grown meat, but they will take clean meat (or simply meat). Workers don't want a "dictatorship", even if it's in their name. But call it something like "worker republicanism" or "proletarian democracy", and you get supporters instantly.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#424
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

My post on Technism.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#425
As We Rise

As We Rise

    I actually left this time

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

.


Let us all come together and help save the world, one tree at a time.


#426
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Here's a meme for our resident commies

photo.jpg


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#427
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

xiaoviolyn

Marx's theory was that Communism was a natural progression from Capitalism, based on technological progression, and its impact on society.
Feudalism to Capitalism with the advent of the Industrial Revolution (and thus cheap goods and labor to exploit for mass production), and then Capitalism to Socialism as the rich got richer, while the poor got poorer but smarter and more knowledgeable due to being more politically conscious.
The transition from Capitalism to Socialism is not the same as a transition from Capitalism to Communism, as Marx's works specifically outline that Socialism is the key phase in which the groundwork for Communism develops.
The ground work established by Socialism is that because of Capitalism, the three classes (Upper, Middle, Lower) will eventually become an imbalance between the Upper (the Bourgeoisie), and everyone else (the Proletariat). The concept was that all the wealth of society would funnel into this small elite who had control over the means of production for society (ie. monopolies over industry, etc.), and the Middle class fractured -- the richest becoming rich, the poorest becoming poorer.
This is the famed 'class struggle' that is prevalent in Marxist literature, and Marx then offhandedly remarked that the Proletariat would eventually overthrow the Bourgeoisie as the dependence the Proletariat once had for the Bourgeoisie disappears as new technologies/means of production emerge.
Once the old class of the factory and corporate-owning bourgeoisie disappeared, the theoretical stage of 'Communism' would come into being, where the old Proletariat are now the 'ruling class'. Marx would then go on to merely theorise/speculate what a Communist society would be like, as Marxist theory revolves on this cycle of class struggle:
The majority splits into a pyramid of classes. As technology progresses, the classes begin to merge. Climax is reached when a major technological/societal/cultural revolution takes place, and the current ruling class is ousted by the majority. Repeat.
Now, what the Western World generally perceives as 'Communism'/'Marxism', is actually Leninism.
Lenin, unlike Marx (who treated Communism as 'heaven' in some respects, I guess), believed so strongly in rushing Russian society onto the route of Communism, that he wrote pages and pages on forcing human beings to artificially develop faster and reach the fabled 'Communist Utopia'.
Enter Leninism, and the Vanguard of the Proletariat.
The Vanguard were intellectuals who spearheaded the revolution. Lenin figured that the Proletariat didn't NEED to know that they were being exploited, nor did they NEED to start the revolution themselves. (EDIT: After having this brought to my attention, I've found my source on this wasn't particularly reliable. Lenin's Vanguard also served as the role as educator of the masses to Marxism. Regardless of his intent, however, in practice, it wasn't particularly well executed. Subsequent critics of Lenin would later state what I had crossed out earlier!) He didn't WANT to wait for the middle class to eventually fracture into the poor and the rich, and he didn't care -- so he did it bottom down, believing that the only way to reach utopia... Was to seize it by force.
That is the difference between Marx and subsequent 'Communist' ideologies.

That's what I've been saying for years now. For as long as attempts at a socialist society are based upon the Bolshevik/Leninist tradition, it will never rise again on this Earth.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#428
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

xiaoviolyn

Thanks, and I'll try to answer these to the best of my ability!
Disclaimer: I was educated in China, under Chinese sources, so I may or may not be biased, so please take my answers with a grain of salt and form your own opinions after looking at other perspectives too!
The fracturing of the middle class into a rich bourgeoisie class getting increasingly richer and everyone else getting increasingly poorer is what leads to the 'class struggle', correct?
Yes.
If so, how does the proletariat pull themselves away from the control of the rich using progression of technology? Wouldn't the rich be in control of the new technology?
This is a hard one, and is one of the questions asked among a few Marxists. I'm no soothsayer, but as Marxism is based upon historical repetition, I'd look towards the previous 'technological revolutions' in order to answer this.
Let's look at Tokugawa Japan, and its transition to Meiji Japan as an example of a contemporary Feudal-Capitalist shift.
If so, how does the proletariat pull themselves away from the control of the rich using progression of technology?
The key to this is that the rich/ruling class becomes complacent, and that the 'lower portion' of the Middle Class become 'turncoats' and are forced into Proletariat status.
In Tokugawa Japan, the Tozama Daimyos, while rulers in their own right, were considered below the other Daimyos, and for this shard of history, were the 'turncoats' from Middle Class to Proletariat.
As some of you may know, the Tozama Daimyos were eventually the ones who embraced Westernisation and Capitalism (Rangaku, etc. etc.) while the Shogunate rejected it. With superior military and economic might caused by their adoption of Capitalism, the Tozama would then go on to spearhead the Meiji Restoration and overthrow the Tokugawa Shogunate, and usher in an industrial revolution for Japan.
Wouldn't the rich be in control of the new technology?
This is interesting because a recurring theme in history is that the ruling classes tend to become complacent, and attempt to pursue the status quo. This may be their downfall!
In the cycle of the class struggle, does this repeat indefinitely according to Marx? Does the cycle continue after the stage of Communism is reached?
It's been a while, so I can't remember exactly what Marx has to say about this, but IIRC, yes, the cycle continues. Communism was just the furthest Marx could predict. Treat Communism as a "IN THE YEAR 20XX..." kind of thing you see in videogames!
Lenin, on the other hand, believed that anything was better than Capitalism, so he focused everything on trying to overcome that.
And from what you said regarding Lenin's views vs. Marx's, in short Marx believed that it was up to the people to pull themselves away as technology progressed and the revolution and subsequent utopia would naturally occur, while Lenin believed that he could jumpstart the revolution without having to get rid of the Proletariat's dependence on the Bourgeoisie?
Yes! One of the KEY things of Marx's vision of the revolution from Capitalism to Socialism was that the Proletariat would become smarter and more politically aware. This could be accomplished through ubiquitous education, free and unlimited access to information and opinions, etc.
In short, the Proletariat had to know they were being oppressed before they could try to struggle against the Bourgeoisie!
And to tie it back into the discussion about China, were Mao and co.'s ideologies significantly different from Lenin's in how they approached the problems? How?
Overall, there was very little ideological difference between Leninism to Stalinism, and Stalinism to Maoism, as most offshoots of modern Communism are derived from Leninism. Their differences generally come from operational/technical differences!
A very abridged explanation is:

  • Leninism = force revolution
  • Stalinism = maintain revolution
  • Maoism = Stalinism, but with a focus on peasants and mass agriculture rather than workers and industry
I can't really elaborate on how they approached the problems because these ideologies sprung up at different 'time periods' of their respective revolutions, so to speak. Leninism emerged as a means to kick out the Tsars, Stalinism emerged as a means to industrialise Russia, and Maoism emerged because Mao was having trouble adapting Stalinism to a woefully undeveloped and uneducated China!

Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#429
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Isn't it interesting how most discussions of a highly automated economy tend to return to something that basically mimics what Marx (not Lenin, not Stalin, not Mao, the original guy Karl Marx) said? 

 

In fact, the only people I've ever seen deny the possibility of high-automation are the same who are typically opposed to socialism but, at the same time, support the same sort of innovation that would lead to automation— you know, neoliberals; libertarians; ancaps; voluntaryists; minarchists. Jakob and Linux on this very forum are perfect examples— Jakob seems to react with glee to anything that suggests that AI and automation are being slowed down or aren't progressing at the exponential rates people claim they are. Yet if the world were predominantly minarchistic, the profit motive would invariably mean that business leaders would pursue automation and eventually general AI, which then sets the stage for classical Marxian socialism to arise, either through gradual evolution or through ultraviolence. Those who can see this coming don't deny it and do try thinking of solutions that don't fall back on the Reverse Luddite Fallacy.

 

 

The perfect example of this is nowhere else but the libertarian mecca that is Silicon Valley— a place that is basically the world center for center-left libertarianism, full of social progressives/economic libertarians. They're the ones championing the idea of automation today (perhaps because of their direct relationship with advanced technology?) leading to a neo-palace economy via UBI tomorrow. I've already explained why I think UBI won't be great times, but it's something more than simply saying "there'll be new jobs we can't imagine today".

 

 

ADD moment: Well, them and anarcho-primitivists. Though they're more of the lot who unironically believe in that humanity was at its peak with "primitive communism"


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#430
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

That's what I've been saying for years now. For as long as attempts at a socialist society are based upon the Bolshevik/Leninist tradition, it will never rise again on this Earth.

But those are the only times when socialism has ever risen on this Earth. Only using Marxism-Leninism can socialism ever rise again and sustain itself. Obviously it would be different depending on the particular circumstances under which particular revolutions take place and the national conditions etc but the core principles of Leninism (itself just an evolution of Marxism) will still be implemented if socialism is to succeed.


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong


#431
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

 

That's what I've been saying for years now. For as long as attempts at a socialist society are based upon the Bolshevik/Leninist tradition, it will never rise again on this Earth.

But those are the only times when socialism has ever risen on this Earth. Only using Marxism-Leninism can socialism ever rise again and sustain itself. Obviously it would be different depending on the particular circumstances under which particular revolutions take place and the national conditions etc but the core principles of Leninism (itself just an evolution of Marxism) will still be implemented if socialism is to succeed.

That's basically the same idea as "This is the only way it's been tried; it's the only way it ever will work." This is the socialist equivalent of conservatism or traditionalism.

One of these days, a great protestant reformation will occur in the socialist realm. When that'll come and what it'll look like, I don't know.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#432
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Marxist-Leninist Futurist ☭

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • LocationUK

Okay whatever, as you wish. Essentially what I mean is that there's nothing wrong with using Leninism. As for these 'new' types of socialism that will supposedly arise and sweep the world, we'll see...


"The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." - Karl Marx
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentleso temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."  - Mao Zedong






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, communism, Marxism, MLM, anarchism, leftism, class war, dialectical materialism, USSR, Stalin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users