4 ms·

Of course I’m not promoting orthodox Marxism here, but it was generally his view that capitalism’s purpose was to catalyze the development of the means of produ

by ewzimm 9y ago

Of course I’m not promoting orthodox Marxism here, but it was generally his view that capitalism’s purpose was to catalyze the development of the means of production in preparation for socialism. If that’s the case, we can argue about when they are sufficiently developed to warrant a socialist revolution, but I could argue that conditions are not yet right for it and we first have to reach the point where resources are much more available than they are today. At some point in the future, when we have a healthy asteroid mining industry, fully automated industry, and human genetic engineering, social classes and traditional families will likely no longer be as relevant, so let’s try to reach for that before we implement full communism.

varjag 9y ago
Marx' view was that communism is the next stage of social-historical development after capitalism and as such is unavoidable due to build up of internal contradictions in the latter. He did envision the transition to be revolutionary and violent, however, and ensuring class struggle wasn't meant to be bloodless. Socialism was viewed by communists as "fake news" if you will, a fad to distract oppressed working class from building a communist society. FWIW I personally don't find socialism objectionable across much of the continuum of bilateral social compromise it represents. It also seem to have defused most of the tension present in late 1800s-early 1900s. My reply above was to the common "No True Scotsman" retort to criticisms of Communism. We have at least two societies that did sincere attempts at following tenets of Manifesto, i.e. including both elimination of proprietors and family: early Bolshevik Russia and Khmer Rouge. Internet Communists find the appalling outcome hard to advocate and instead focus on criticising the implementation.
- ewzimm 9y ago
  Those are perspectives grounded in history, but I think you’d have to qualify socialism in that case as “market socialism” or “democratic socialism” as it’s understood today. Marx did lay out socialism as the next stage to follow capitalism but didn’t provide detail about how it was to work, which led to the various types of socialism we have today. Still, many argue that these are all essentially vanguard movements for the communist ideals you laid out: the abolition of private property, social classes, and even the family. This is still the source of a lot of skepticism about the effects of these types of systems. Even without the revolutionary ideology, socialism as it’s implemented today seems to be breaking dependence on traditional social structures.
  - varjag 9y ago
    It's been a while since my Marxism-Leninism class so caveat emptor, but I believe the role of socialism was limited. There supposed to be transitional phase from coercive proletarian state to truly classless society aided by "socialist mode of production", but not much after that. The socialist and social-democratic (as you correctly put it) movements promoted socialism as end-game within bourgeois/capitalist social framework and were viewed as adversarial. And clearly there are ongoing changes in social fabric but it's hard to attribute them to socialist movements alone more than to e.g. technological, agricultural or medical advances.
    - ewzimm 9y ago
      Socialism and communism are often used interchangeably, but communism almost always refers to the end state, while socialism tends to encompass both the transition and the end state. It’s a little hazy even to Marxists. This might help clear it up: https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.h... Anyway, the type of socialism you’re referring to is associated with the cooperative movement which led to things like mutual insurance and credit unions. I fully support these types of systems in which people with common interests and a common communitry create structures to support themselves. I think this is the best way to create structures with community-based values that compete with for-profit industries which don’t always represent their customers.
- amag 9y ago
  Let's not forget Mao, he sure killed quite a few people as well.
  - varjag 9y ago
    Sure. Am just not certain he ever tried abolition of family, having only a cursory knowledge of Maoism. Given that he was disciple of Stalin (who assumed power long after USSR ceded on these attempts), suspected he did not.

by ewzimm 9y ago

varjag 9y ago

Marx' view was that communism is the next stage of social-historical development after capitalism and as such is unavoidable due to build up of internal contradictions in the latter. He did envision the transition to be revolutionary and violent, however, and ensuring class struggle wasn't meant to be bloodless. Socialism was viewed by communists as "fake news" if you will, a fad to distract oppressed working class from building a communist society. FWIW I personally don't find socialism objectionable across much of the continuum of bilateral social compromise it represents. It also seem to have defused most of the tension present in late 1800s-early 1900s. My reply above was to the common "No True Scotsman" retort to criticisms of Communism. We have at least two societies that did sincere attempts at following tenets of Manifesto, i.e. including both elimination of proprietors and family: early Bolshevik Russia and Khmer Rouge. Internet Communists find the appalling outcome hard to advocate and instead focus on criticising the implementation.

ewzimm 9y ago
Those are perspectives grounded in history, but I think you’d have to qualify socialism in that case as “market socialism” or “democratic socialism” as it’s understood today. Marx did lay out socialism as the next stage to follow capitalism but didn’t provide detail about how it was to work, which led to the various types of socialism we have today. Still, many argue that these are all essentially vanguard movements for the communist ideals you laid out: the abolition of private property, social classes, and even the family. This is still the source of a lot of skepticism about the effects of these types of systems. Even without the revolutionary ideology, socialism as it’s implemented today seems to be breaking dependence on traditional social structures.
- varjag 9y ago
  It's been a while since my Marxism-Leninism class so caveat emptor, but I believe the role of socialism was limited. There supposed to be transitional phase from coercive proletarian state to truly classless society aided by "socialist mode of production", but not much after that. The socialist and social-democratic (as you correctly put it) movements promoted socialism as end-game within bourgeois/capitalist social framework and were viewed as adversarial. And clearly there are ongoing changes in social fabric but it's hard to attribute them to socialist movements alone more than to e.g. technological, agricultural or medical advances.
  - ewzimm 9y ago
    Socialism and communism are often used interchangeably, but communism almost always refers to the end state, while socialism tends to encompass both the transition and the end state. It’s a little hazy even to Marxists. This might help clear it up: https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.h... Anyway, the type of socialism you’re referring to is associated with the cooperative movement which led to things like mutual insurance and credit unions. I fully support these types of systems in which people with common interests and a common communitry create structures to support themselves. I think this is the best way to create structures with community-based values that compete with for-profit industries which don’t always represent their customers.
amag 9y ago
Let's not forget Mao, he sure killed quite a few people as well.
- varjag 9y ago
  Sure. Am just not certain he ever tried abolition of family, having only a cursory knowledge of Maoism. Given that he was disciple of Stalin (who assumed power long after USSR ceded on these attempts), suspected he did not.