212
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
212 points (92.7% liked)
Political Memes
5487 readers
2676 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wait. I'm ignorant about this stuff. Can someone explain please?
At a super rough gloss:
Pure Marxism encompasses two basic theories: Marx's critique of capitalist economics, which he argues are predicated on unjust material distributions which are employed by the owning class to steal value from the working class by controlling the means of production; and his proposed alternative, wherein the workers own the means of production and exist in a stateless, classless worker's paradise ("communism").
Notably lacking in Marx's work is a compelling plan for how to move from capitalism to communism. Enter Leninism: to transition, the so-called "vanguard party" will seize control and establish a total dictatorship to wholly quash capitalism and bring the society into alignment towards communism; when this is achieved, the vanguard party is supposed to relinquish control and the worker's utopia may commence.
This school of thought, deemed Marxism-Leninism, is the nominal philosophy underpinning many modern states that bill themselves as communist, including the USSR and the CCP. While on paper it provides a feasible path to the worker's utopia, critics argue that in practice the vanguard party fails to relinquish control, establish themselves as the new owning class, and operate a fundamentally capitalist regime under the trappings of communism.
Wow that's a great explanation! Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to write this. It's a lot more clear now.
Orthodox Marxism believes that societies develop through different modes of production, each one building the foundations for the next - feudalism builds the foundation for capitalism, which overthrows it; capitalism builds the foundation for socialism, which overthrows capitalism in turn.
Marxist-Leninists believe that you can skip the whole pesky "capitalist accumulation" bit if you just believe really hard with a small group of dedicated ideologues (the vanguard party), and that if you give all power to this vanguard, it will DEFINITELY turn into a worker's state. Somehow. Someday. Seemingly, though, every time MLs have tried this, it's devolved into a fascist state or a capitalist oligarchy.
Very curious. I'm sure this isn't some flaw in their brilliant planning. Maybe they didn't believe hard enough.
And the beauty of such an excellent summary is that it's all historically based. So many things look good on paper but never factor human nature—which coincidentally loves ignoring history and repeating it's mistakes.
You can't have a hierarchical society without the problems with hierarchy
Even if you aim to not have one, one will naturally form. Then you gotta enforce it, which ironically creates it, and an authority becomes elite through power or wealth, etc. Pick any social ism you like and that's the natural outcome. Millions of years of nature can't be suddenly undone by an idea or school of thought. The issue has always been us and ideas of a better society never factor in that it's for humans that be all humany.
Hierarchies aren't as hard-coded into humanity as you think it is. There are non-hierarchical societies still existing today, like immediate-return hunter-gatherers.
The environment of a society forms their ideology. Not some vague notion of "human nature". The question is: how do we create the conditions for a free society to form out of the current one?
A reduction in population to return to numbers we thrived in, so that you are once again in a society of just 50 or so others working like a single organism, all with value and purpose. A pack, a tribe, a village, a community; whatever you want to call that instilled natural concept we do well in.
But you get those numbers up just a bit, well we know what happens.
That's the common narrative, but I don't think that's a necessity.
If you could cull psychopathy, sociopathy,.and narcissism, while providing an environment that never triggers innate survival/competitive instincts, you're probably onto a good start. Or, yeah, just keep the numbers.low and hope progress still occurs.
You don't need to "cull" anything. A healthy societal network along with usufruct property relations should be stable against egotistical tendencies that would harm the group.
You say that, but this conversation originated from acknowledging history.
So if you know a way to achieve this...
...that doesn't result in the same as all historical data so far, by all means. Just keep in mind, all failures so far started that way; most commonly underestimating/respecting human nature and how instilled and old it is.
I think you're oversimplifying literally all of history. I think you understate humanity's ability to make their own decisions and be active participants of forming their destiny, instead of relying on biologi(al determinism.
All "failures" so far started off with way less human power over the circumstances they inhabited than we have now. Warmongers that looted other peoples wouldn't have needed to do so with a more complete understanding of agriculture.
I appreciate your optimism, but our best data is from modern history and the more recent it was, the more it has shown my (the) hypothesis to be true.
But I've gone through my phase of optimism. I've hit all the walls and then felt like a fool when I realised it's just history repeating. I do not believe that some single school of thought can work because somehow everyone was able to harmoniously agree and adhere to it—just look at religions ffs lol. All I know of this world is that the opposite will assuredly happen with a guarantee stronger than sunrise. If we have another consistent trait, it's naivety that all people and all societies are like us and therefore should be like how we most idealised the world of tomorrow.
But keep it up. It may not be you or those after you, but eventually it could be persistent enough that we evolve into it. Just obviously don't expect to be alive for that fruition.
Edit: Also, I had an edit about appreciating the discussion thus far, then I fumbled it re-editting and somehow lost it. It was complimentary and profound, and you just gotta roll with that. But to paraphrase; Thanks for the respect you've shown and sharing your perspective while hearing mine. This is how humans learn and get better. Sharing, respecting, learning. Oh, and that I admired your optimism and despised my pessimism, but they are both equally valid and important.
Thanks for the respectful answer.
If you want to experience an account that's a bit more optimistic, I'd recommend "The Dawn of everything". It has it's issues, but the core thesis of the book is that humans are able to chose their societal structures within the confines of their environment.
I knew I didn’t like Leninism, but it was moreso because I hate totalitarian regimes. TIL about the vanguard and it’s purpose, thanks for that.
No problem!
The worst part is I really do understand the temptation of that kind of thinking - "If only I was in charge, if only the people who were on my side were in charge, we know exactly what's wrong and we know what to do to fix it!" - but societies operate according to the way their interests are structured, and no amount of ideological fervor can change that.
Vanguard parties pretty inevitably turn against worker's democracy, because people are fickle and will not keep them in total power indefinitely (and gods know leftists love infighting), but in doing so, they set up their own interests in opposition to the interests of the workers. At that point, it's just a matter of time, the clock ticking until despotic clientism of a very feudal sort reasserts itself.
I mean, it’s kind of like the concept of the benevolent dictator.
…benevolent to whom?
My favorite example of the flaw in this thinking is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
An incredibly brilliant, driven, and ruthless man. Wildly popular, unmatched power, friendless workaholic, insane charisma, genuine ideological dedication, incredibly well-read, deeply involved with coordinating with experts on every facet of society, cult of personality, the works. And though he could do great things for Turkiye, he still could not fundamentally change its power structures without undermining his own power - but if he undermined his own power, he could not guarantee that the power structures would change to his liking.
It's a fundamental flaw in the accumulation of power in a single institution (such as a strongman/dictator/vanguard party/etc). Accumulating power causes society to form around the actual locus of power, regardless of how that power tries to redirect society.
Is there any good ideas on a plausible way to manage power? The fundamental laws governing power, politics, wealth etc seem to always lead to negative outcomes.
Like state socialism led to the same complete concentration of economic power in the hands of the few as late stage capitalism is doing now. But I've never heard of any plan to address this.
One idea would be to randomly select representatives, bypassing filters that select for those who are best at accumulating power at the expense of anything else. Randocracy?
Or are we just out of good ideas?
Generally, the suggestion is either "Separation of powers" (ensuring that each power-hungry institution has a self-interest in keeping the other power hungry groups from getting too powerful) or decentralization of power (a la anarchists). Both have strengths and weaknesses. State socialism in most polities has only been attempted with very... authoritarian regimes with no real interest in separation of powers (and certainly not in decentralization), so there's some ambiguity as to whether it would work out better in a legitimately democratic polity.
Sortition, that's called. The ancient Athenians used it for some offices.
Oh thanks! It seems a lot of the arguments agree with what I was speculating. I find it suspicious that you hear so little about this idea.
Of course none of that would work with the abysmal current state of news media.
The strength to overcome capitalism has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? Lenin says that for the workers to achieve this strength, the organization of the working class is necessary, because it is the only weapon we have in front of the entire state apparatus that the bourgeoisie holds and the only way to organize this force is through a vanguard party
So far, so good.
See, this is where it runs into problems. The whole idea of the vanguard party ignores that this vanguard, if successful, is placed into exactly the same position as prior (usually feudal) elites, and that material conditions thus suggest that a similar relationship of the vanguard with society will come about - which is what has happened every time thus far.
I'm more partial to syndicalist notions, personally.
We may not agree on the method of how our class (I assume you are not a bourgeois) should organize but if you defend the idea that the workers should overcome capitalism and take the reins of power, we are friends
Awesome. Unironically. It would be nice to see a real labor revival and the destruction of capitalism within my lifetime. I won't hold my breath for doing anything on a timetable that short - gods know the course of history is fickle - but hope for that eventual future is what keeps us going.