• Cowbee [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Again, I am going to recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme.

    Marx specifically states that humans are not equal, else they would not be different, and thus have unequal needs and abilities. It is because of this that the goal is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” This quote specifically comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme.

    Hierarchy is unjust if it is in contradiction, if it is through a worker state it ceases to be unjust, and merely becomes what must be done. Engels elaborates on this im On Authority.

    Marx was not an Anarchist, he was accepting of administration and a gradual buildup towards Communism.

    • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      @Cowbee
      Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I’ve read it and I don’t agree with it. I disagree with Marx’s emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.

      • Cowbee [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You could’ve said that from the start, that you aren’t a Marxist.

        I don’t believe you can say that Marxism is a betrayal of Communism any more than you can say Anarchism is a betrayal of Marxism. If your entire point is that Marxist societies were not authentically Anarchist, then I am not sure why we are having this conversation. It’s both obvious and silly.

        • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          @Cowbee
          Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it’s not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There’s no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.

          • Cowbee [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.

            I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).

            • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              @Cowbee
              I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn’t been given a proper chance so it’s impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of…

                • Cowbee [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.

                  I believe by “Libertarian Communism” you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marx’s descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.

                  Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.

                  • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    @Cowbee
                    Libertarian Communism doesn’t advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I’m not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.