1507
But "socialism" is a scary word (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
296 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

"Political Class" isn't really a thing, though, unless you're replacing Class with Category, in which case "plumber" and "janitor" would be distinct classes. Administration and management are forms of labor, and are necessary in large-scale complex production, even Anarchists concede this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I wish this was true. But as seen in history a class does developed around the political leader. This is why the country cried with the death of Stalin, he was a god to the workers. This isn't how the vanguard should look in the push towards a classless society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    In what manner is it not?

    Edit to respond to your edit: I think you are confusing power with classes, and hierarchy with classes. A class is defined by its social relation to the Means of Production, a CEO can technically be proletarian if they are merely employed by the board and have no ownership. There is hierarchy, and unequal power, but the relation to Capital is fundamentally different as the M-C-M' circuit does not directly funnel into their pockets like it would with Capitalists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sorry I edited my response

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I edited mine as well, I'll copy and paste it here for coherence:

    I think you are confusing power with classes, and hierarchy with classes. A class is defined by its social relation to the Means of Production, a CEO can technically be proletarian if they are merely employed by the board and have no ownership. There is hierarchy, and unequal power, but the relation to Capital is fundamentally different as the M-C-M' circuit does not directly funnel into their pockets like it would with Capitalists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I guess my previous response about not supporting superpowers still holds but yes was a bit silly to say class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Gotcha! I admit, I was being nitpicky, but it's a very important nuance when understanding how Socialism is built and how Class Antagonisms are reconciled. Beaurocratization is absolutely something to be avoided where possible, but administrative positions and managerial positions will always be present unless humanity can build a fully automated system it can fully trust, and that is technology for the far-future anyways if it ever does come into existence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    We need a system to measure ego before allowing so much power which isn't possible. The more I think about the vanguard and the dissolution of that apparatus the less plausible I find it. Then again I'm a trot and the forever revolution kind of takes care of that.. I hope.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    The Vanguard will always exist until Communism, even if you don't formalize it. The Vanguard is simply the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class, in nearly all cases now the Proletariat. The Vanguard isn't supposed to "dissolve" so much as "wither away," ie as class antagonisms are worked out the "general" and "backwards" sections of the mass population increase in political awareness through the process of building Communism. The formalized Vanguard dies out of itself along with the class struggle much the same way as the State, not by intention but by erasing its foundations, as it must do so if we adopt a Marxian view of economics.

    To not formalize the Vanguard in a party structure results in serious danger of informal and thus unaccountable structures becoming entrenched with informal power. A great essay on the subject is The Tyranny of Structurelessness, I highly recommend it. The necessity, therefore, is to formalize the Vanguard and set it up along the principles of Democratic Centralism and adherence to the Mass Line.

    I won't comment on Trotskyism or Permanent Revolution here, as I don't think this discussion needs derailing, but I wanted to acknowledge it as I didn't want you to think I ignored it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent