10 ms·

She is not communist, communism is all about meritocracy, I don't read anywhere in the books of Marx all this gender and equality bullshit. Communism says that

She is not communist, communism is all about meritocracy, I don't read anywhere in the books of Marx all this gender and equality bullshit. Communism says that no matter who you are you are evaluated for the work you do, having policies that explicitally favorites womans is not communism, is discrimination against mens

stareatgoats 8y ago
I'm assuming by 'communism' you mean Marxist philosophy. The most accurate description would however probably be that morals like this don't exist in a metaphysical sense, but are tied to each stage in social development (hunter/gatherers, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism) [0]. Under socialism (the next stage from ours) workers would be rewarded according to contribution (meritocracy) whereas the final stage (communism) would reward humans according to need instead. It's a philosophy colored by the positivism and development optimism of the 19th century, which tried to superimpose a deterministic (scientific) model on history unfolding, with contemporary Europe at its development pinnacle. Whether it is a correct theory remains to be seen (in a few thousand years, but I wouldn't hold my breath), but the case could be made that we are already gradually leaving the capitalist stage, and that we are even moving into communist territory (rewarding according to need - affirmative action etc), i.e. with the stages simultaneously coexisting with one another, without the violent revolutionary disruptions that traditional Marxists anticipated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Stages_of_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Sta...
- gnulinux 8y ago
  There is no "stages" in Marxism. That's a Stalinist bullshit that doesn't make any sense in the theoretical framework of Marx&Engels. The natural force that makes capitalism possible is commodity production because: as long as there are commodities this implies a division of labor where a labor produces something for the sole reason trade and thus implies social class; and as long as there is commodity production you'll have the accumulation of value. Communism is in direct opposition to social class and value. The Marxist idea is instead that communism is the society where the natural force that generates capitalism is somehow killed, this implies the society will not have social class, will not have value (and as an implication no trade, since in Marxism value is determined in the moment of trade, and that moment alone). Thus thinking about "stages" where some "State" is governing "towards" a classless, valueless, stateless society makes as much as the rest of Stalinism. Traditional Marxism predicts a communist revolution much like French Revolution.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    And that's not what the OP said. Marx said there are stages to "society", which are (from the link): - Primitive communism - tribes sharing everything - slavery - e.g. ancient Egypt - feudalism - kinds, fiefs, serfs - capitalism - current state - socialism - dictatorship of the proletariat - communism - stateless, classless society Marx combines the last two into one "communist" stage, but distinguishes them as phases. Traditional Marxism uses words differently than we do today. Yes, it predicts a revolution, though we'd term that a "socialist" revolution, not a communist one, because even Marx believed there needed to be a phase to transition to a stateless, classless society because society is affected by the previous stage. Now, I completely disagree with Marx's assessment of things, but that's irrelevant.
    - gnulinux 8y ago
      "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a phase, the same way the dictatorship of bourgeoisie was/is not a phase. (also sidenote Marx used the word "dictatorship" a vastly different way than we use it today). > because even Marx believed there needed to be a phase to transition This is [[citation needed]] (if you're thinking of low phase communism, high phase communism (C. of Gotha Program), this is vastly misunderstood, so I could explain this in details but this is not a good argument is all I can say now). As I said, this doesn't make sense inside the framework of Marxism, since it only makes sense to classify societies based on material grounds, not idealistic grounds. So, the fundamental thesis of Marx is that society exists completely independent of politics, power hierarchies, ideas etc... You can disagree with this, but you cannot argue about Marx with semi-understanding of his thesis. The only time we can talk about a societal stage is when the economic structure changes, and these changes are well-defined, well-understood inside the framework of Marxism. As I keep repeating myself, Marxism claims there are fundamental "forces of nature" that make capitalism possible inside society (just like photons make light possible). While this force of nature is still alive, it doesn't make sense to say this society is not capitalistic. DotP is one possible way socialism can be achieved, it's not a stage as Marx intentionally does not explain the economic structure of such a society (it would be idealistic and inherently anti-Marxist). In my experience in the internet most people argue about Marxism from his idealist "supporters" like Stalin or Mao, but such ideas rarely have much relation to both tradition Marxism (Marxian) or modern academic Marxism (world systems etc).
- beatgammit 8y ago
  I don't think we're "moving toward a communist phase", as that requires a complete change in motivation. I believe that people are selfish. Helping other people feels good (you're exerting power over someone my helping them), thus the wealthy are content to do so once their quest for riches has been fulfilled. Instead of the public owning the means of production (socialism), I think the wealthy will retain control, but give freely (or insanely cheaply) of the _fruits_ of production. The average person doesn't want control, they just want the fruits, and they're content to let the wealthy play their political games if they get what they want. Instead of seeing a complete reversal of capitalism into socialism, I think it's _far_ more reasonable to expect something like UBI where everyone receives according to their need, but they still don't have control of the means of production, and society certainly won't be classless (there will always be the wealthy/powerful, but perhaps no "poor", esp with automation taking must labor jobs).

stareatgoats 8y ago

I'm assuming by 'communism' you mean Marxist philosophy. The most accurate description would however probably be that morals like this don't exist in a metaphysical sense, but are tied to each stage in social development (hunter/gatherers, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism) [0]. Under socialism (the next stage from ours) workers would be rewarded according to contribution (meritocracy) whereas the final stage (communism) would reward humans according to need instead. It's a philosophy colored by the positivism and development optimism of the 19th century, which tried to superimpose a deterministic (scientific) model on history unfolding, with contemporary Europe at its development pinnacle. Whether it is a correct theory remains to be seen (in a few thousand years, but I wouldn't hold my breath), but the case could be made that we are already gradually leaving the capitalist stage, and that we are even moving into communist territory (rewarding according to need - affirmative action etc), i.e. with the stages simultaneously coexisting with one another, without the violent revolutionary disruptions that traditional Marxists anticipated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Stages_of_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Sta...

gnulinux 8y ago
There is no "stages" in Marxism. That's a Stalinist bullshit that doesn't make any sense in the theoretical framework of Marx&Engels. The natural force that makes capitalism possible is commodity production because: as long as there are commodities this implies a division of labor where a labor produces something for the sole reason trade and thus implies social class; and as long as there is commodity production you'll have the accumulation of value. Communism is in direct opposition to social class and value. The Marxist idea is instead that communism is the society where the natural force that generates capitalism is somehow killed, this implies the society will not have social class, will not have value (and as an implication no trade, since in Marxism value is determined in the moment of trade, and that moment alone). Thus thinking about "stages" where some "State" is governing "towards" a classless, valueless, stateless society makes as much as the rest of Stalinism. Traditional Marxism predicts a communist revolution much like French Revolution.
- beatgammit 8y ago
  And that's not what the OP said. Marx said there are stages to "society", which are (from the link): - Primitive communism - tribes sharing everything - slavery - e.g. ancient Egypt - feudalism - kinds, fiefs, serfs - capitalism - current state - socialism - dictatorship of the proletariat - communism - stateless, classless society Marx combines the last two into one "communist" stage, but distinguishes them as phases. Traditional Marxism uses words differently than we do today. Yes, it predicts a revolution, though we'd term that a "socialist" revolution, not a communist one, because even Marx believed there needed to be a phase to transition to a stateless, classless society because society is affected by the previous stage. Now, I completely disagree with Marx's assessment of things, but that's irrelevant.
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a phase, the same way the dictatorship of bourgeoisie was/is not a phase. (also sidenote Marx used the word "dictatorship" a vastly different way than we use it today). > because even Marx believed there needed to be a phase to transition This is [[citation needed]] (if you're thinking of low phase communism, high phase communism (C. of Gotha Program), this is vastly misunderstood, so I could explain this in details but this is not a good argument is all I can say now). As I said, this doesn't make sense inside the framework of Marxism, since it only makes sense to classify societies based on material grounds, not idealistic grounds. So, the fundamental thesis of Marx is that society exists completely independent of politics, power hierarchies, ideas etc... You can disagree with this, but you cannot argue about Marx with semi-understanding of his thesis. The only time we can talk about a societal stage is when the economic structure changes, and these changes are well-defined, well-understood inside the framework of Marxism. As I keep repeating myself, Marxism claims there are fundamental "forces of nature" that make capitalism possible inside society (just like photons make light possible). While this force of nature is still alive, it doesn't make sense to say this society is not capitalistic. DotP is one possible way socialism can be achieved, it's not a stage as Marx intentionally does not explain the economic structure of such a society (it would be idealistic and inherently anti-Marxist). In my experience in the internet most people argue about Marxism from his idealist "supporters" like Stalin or Mao, but such ideas rarely have much relation to both tradition Marxism (Marxian) or modern academic Marxism (world systems etc).
beatgammit 8y ago
I don't think we're "moving toward a communist phase", as that requires a complete change in motivation. I believe that people are selfish. Helping other people feels good (you're exerting power over someone my helping them), thus the wealthy are content to do so once their quest for riches has been fulfilled. Instead of the public owning the means of production (socialism), I think the wealthy will retain control, but give freely (or insanely cheaply) of the _fruits_ of production. The average person doesn't want control, they just want the fruits, and they're content to let the wealthy play their political games if they get what they want. Instead of seeing a complete reversal of capitalism into socialism, I think it's _far_ more reasonable to expect something like UBI where everyone receives according to their need, but they still don't have control of the means of production, and society certainly won't be classless (there will always be the wealthy/powerful, but perhaps no "poor", esp with automation taking must labor jobs).