45
This is gold
(thelemmy.club)
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
Marx said that communism would evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community. It also involved democracy by electing officials where necessary. He didn't mention state control, so no, we have not remotely experienced communism.
You might argue, even correctly, that communism is unworkable, but you can't argue that humans have tried it in modern history and it failed.
I mean...what? Marx didn't mention state control? Marx analysed state control in several contexts. He said that communist society was "stateless" so yes he did mention state control under communism in the manifesto. He analysed the "bourgeois" state, and how it compared with feudal kingdoms and states.
The Marxist formulation of the state is that it is a historical/social mechanism to manage class antagonisms. The state in a capitalist country is a capitalist state, which functions to keep the capitalists in power and divide/repress the workers, so the workers can be exploited by the capitalists. So, according to Marx, the state does in fact have to be seized by a mass worker party, smashed, and then replaced with a worker's state.
This would be a transitional stage before communism. Some people call it "socialism." This definitely had been tried, with different kinds of successes and failures in different places at different times.
This is all extremely abstract, and dependent on the time and place where it is "tried". If you "tried communism," as in creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society, according to Marx, it would definitely fail. That is not how theory of change works under Marxism, kind of how you describe "evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community." Except according to Marx, this change doesn't come about only by people working together, although that will undoubtably be a huge part of it, and such an important part of it I can't fault you for it.
But what will bring about socialism, the transitional phase where the workers have control of a "state," and use it to suppress the capitalists ability to exploit workers for their own profits, will be working together to smash capitalism, liberate as many people as possible -- more people every day from oppressive conditions, institute new forms of real democracy and consent, and defend this revolution from anyone who tries to take power from the masses for themselves. That practical activity is communism. So communism can be tried in our society, in that Marxism isn't just a theory but a theory in practice.
But trying to force a capitalist society into a fully communist society will always fail. And any attempts to do so, even in the name of Marxism, are not Marxist. Marxism rejects prefigurative politics. In fact I don't really think of Marxism as a way of predicting the future, but rather, as a way of seeing what is actually happening in our society so we can take action to change it.
I think you can.
I think what happened was exactly what will always happen when people try real communism.
Like any political system it will be brought down by the aspects of human nature it misunderstands or misrepresents.
"Real" communism understands "human nature" in that human nature is not essential but historically and socially contingent. When communism is thought of and implemented abstractly, which you are doing but also in cases where social movements have "tried" it, then it fails to understand that society is made of people and their activity, and can not be thought of abstractly in separating people from the society we create. This is a key insight of Marx.
Unfortunately, usually when people talk about "human nature" they are also being too abstract and can't define exactly what they mean, because in order for something to be essential to humanity it has to be found in virtually every culture in every time. Human nature is always cultural, and culture is shaped by who rules over society.
Well, I can see this is addressed to a general case but I'll try a reply anyway.
When I talk about human nature I'm talking about the essential nature of who and what it means to be human.
True, this is always tied to the context and environment. Part that human essentialism is our adaptability, our plasticity.
Had Marx access to the research and theory we have today, I imagine he could have produced a more accurate and refined theory!
As a thousand men can make a thousand shapes with clay their finished product will always be clay, though with a thousand uses.
You have to compare what went before it as well. China is a success compared to the utter slavery and poverty of the common folk before the communist revolution. It's not freedom exactly, but even the US isn't free either by many measures. China has guaranteed vacation days, at least. It has near universal health insurance, and while not free, is heavily subsidized by the government.
I'd say that a perfect form of government doesn't exist, but communism isn't necessarily the worst. At least in every regard.
That comparison is absolutely essential when looking at history and reality, I agree.
If you're looking at abstract theory, maybe less relevant.
But then, is there any meaningful discussion of political theory in the abstract? Maybe it should always be grounded in real history since that's the highest quality evidence.
The trouble with theories is they only work theoretically!
Absolutely agree.