Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
So I'm cool with socialism, and I consider myself to be socialist, but I don't think communism and socialism are the same thing. I believe that communist countries have a communist system, not a socialist system. If they did have a socialist system, then they'd be socialists, not communists.
And what I'm saying about the trade unions is that I'm not against the existence of communist trade unions but I'd like there to be trade unions of other political ideologies as well, such as socialist ones, anarchist ones, etc.
I'd like to exist in a world where borders don't matter and there aren't any foreign governments trying to sabotage each other, but that's not the state of reality today and idk if it will ever be, but I base my position on non-citizens being unable to vote based on the reality of what the world is today and if the world changes, then I'll probably change my position as well, but I don't see change like that happening in my lifetime.
Okay, I'm going to clarify some things here. For reference, I am a Marxist, particularly a Marxist-Leninist. I used to consder myself more of an Anarchist, but reading more Marxist theory and history books generally led me towards Marxism-Leninism. As such, the explanations I am going to give in a second are from that perspective, a Marxist that at one point considered themselves to be an Anarchist.
All Communists are, first and foremost, Socialists. Socialism is categorized by an economic system where public ownership and planning is primary and thus dominant over markets. Communism refers to a post-Socialist economic system where all property has been collectivized in a world Socialist republic, the famous "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless Society." When I reference the ideology of AES states, I reference Marxism or Communism or a specific strain of Marxism, but when I reference the economic model of an AES state, it changes.
For example, the PRC is Marxist-Leninist, but practices "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," which appears as a form of a "Socialist Market Economy." This economic model looks different from, say, Cuba, even though both are guided by Marxism-Leninism and working towards Communism.
There are other forms of Socialism, however in the grand historical and theoretical context the overwhelming majority fall into the broad categories of Marxism and Anarchism.
Does this all make sense so far? If you're interested, I wrote an introductory Marxist reading list, the first section in particular is short and very helpful for just being familiar with general terminology and goals.
I've read a bit about Marxism-Leninism before because I like to be knowledgeable about different people's viewpoints and ideologies. I agree that the workers should have ownership of what they produce and that products should be produced based on need and not profits. I also believe that we should flatten society's hierarchical structure as much as possible since positions of power lead to abuse, however I don't think it's feasible to fully flatten it, because criminals still exist and I can't think of a way prosecution would work without hierarchy. However, I do not believe that all property should be collectively owned and that is a turn off for me. Now that's not the only thing that turns me off, but it is one of many.
I understand that we share several viewpoints but we also have several views we disagree on and I think that's okay. I am extremely dubious of Marxism-Leninism because I have seen Marxist-Leninists support authoritarianism and deny genocide, but as long as you don't, I'm chill. People are allowed to have their own opinions and as long as they aren't harming anyone, again I'm chill with their existence. Generally I don't talk about this, but I am Pagan, and with that comes the belief of pluralism which I apply not only to religious beliefs but also politics as well.
When you say you don't think all property should be collectively owned, what about it specifically turns you away from that? What does that look like in your eyes? I think more than anything you sound like a Marxist-Leninist that just hasn't read much theory, because other than that sticking point you seem to be saying the same things Marxist-Leninists say.
Just food for thought, my reading list is there if you want it or not.
I think people should be able to have personal property. They should own their house and their yard. If they have a cabin up north, vacation home down south, or acres of wilderness that they hunt on, they should be able to own that too. I understand that the housing market is shit rn but I think that's caused by flippers and the wealthy treating houses like stocks, and not by your neighbor Bob having a cabin or whatever.
Really I prefer the label of being a left leaning pluralist instead since it makes it clear that I am tolerant of varying ideologies but intolerant of extremism and political violence.
I asked because Marxists make a distinction between personal and public property, you can own things you use. Probably not owning acres of land, but housing is something you can own.
Is there something you especially believe should be ownable by individuals that you think Marxists want to collectivize?
When I hear marxists say that all property should be collectively owned I imagine that means personal property as well, because if it doesn't then it's incorrect for them to say that they think all property should be collectively owned.
It's a shorthand, it's hard to distill the nuances and complexities of a very dense and historied ideology. Getting into the nuances of property ownership would take a lot longer, because usually said conversations end up being about where the line between private, public, and personal property is drawn. Such conversations are rarely productive and miss the greater picture, and require extensive explanation of Dialectical and Historical Materialism to even get into the why of collectivizing production.
I think most people interpret that shorthand literally just like I did, which then immediately turns them away. You could probably save yourself a lot of arguments by coming up with a different shorthand that more effectively communicates your point.
Probably! There's also a century of Red Scare propaganda distorting popular opinion, doctoring of Marx's actual beliefs, and more. Such issues delayed my progress, which is why I try to do the best I can to try to meet people where they are at.