109
I'm A Communist
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
109 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
50384 readers
1107 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Does a global expansion require imperialism? Getting the entire world to sign up before dissolving sounds pretty mission impossible.
For about 30 years from around 1950 the American government believed communism was so liable to spread that their only option for maintaining a capitalist world hegemony was direct intervention in communist countries and countries with strong communist movements. See: domino theory. They even worried about it domestically which was part of the motivation for McCarthyism.
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.
I feel like the Chinese model is already way too far into pragmatism to ever idealistically flip the switch to abolishing their state at the endgame.
The abolition of the state isn't a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.
I think you're confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn't what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.
So if everyone gets rich we have Communism?
Also I read some of your other link as well, but it went into tangents about elite friend groups and while it was interesting I felt like watching one of those 2 hour videos about speedrunning where you get a huge infodump but are not sure what to take away from it.
Not exactly. The economic foundations for the abolition of class are in the increasing socialization of production and the decay of market forces lending themselves to collective planning and cooperative functions. That's the extreme oversimplification, but as these classes fade away so too do the mechanisms of enforcing them via the state. In China's case, as long as they continue to combat corruption and focus on developing the productive forces, they will regularly develop further along the Socialist road, erasing the contradictions remaining from Capitalism until Communism is achieved globally.
As for the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it's about why formalizing structures is necessary. I brought it up specifically in the context of vanguardism, the implication being that formalizing a vanguard is better than letting informal elites guide a movement without democratic structures in place.
Okay but how does it solve this im14andthisisdeep Facebook meme?
People will always want more, Communism isn't a vow of poverty, it readily acknowledges that production will continue to improve when Humanity has become Capital's master, rather than its slave.
Greed is boundless for some. If anything Capitalism is the perfect example of this. I don't see how having enough will fix it for them.
When I look at the open-source community the way altruistic projects reach sustainable success is with a beneficial dictator which is authoritarian but has correct intentions.
I don't really see how that's a problem for Communism. People go without megamansions all the time in Capitalism, and it isn't just those who can afford them that want them. Satisfying a much larger quantity of needs is a good thing.
Sure but how can Communism prevent someone from trying to acquire more wealth than they need?
I don't think the idea of Communism that exists in your head is the same understanding of Communism that Marxists have, if that's the question you're asking. Could you explain how you think someone would go about "trying to aquire more wealth than they need" in a Communist system to begin with, and why it would be an issue?
I'm trying to understand where the differences are in our understanding so I can better get across what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything.
Sure, so I'm completely unfamiliar with the whole Commune structure and am wondering how wealth would be acquired and distributed. Are people rewarded for their labor and how does ownership work?
Depends on the level of development of Communism, and we won't know what is applicable to when until we get there. Communism isn't a Utopia invented by Marx, but a prediction for the future based on analysis of politics and economics throughout history and the present, ergo we have to develop into it and see where it actually takes us.
In general, though, with a fully publicly owned and planned economy, people would be rewarded for their labor, yes, but it might take the form of labor vouchers, a different form of currency, etc designed to not be transferable to others in the economy individually, but with the social fund as a whole. This system of varying "prices" can be solved for using various feedback loops called "cybernetiks."
I recommend reading Prices in a Planned Economy, it's a useful intro to how to think about abolishing the commodity form.
General said founders will also has a business mind instead of just blind fanaticism.