Marxists aren’t fascists, though. Fascism is insepparable from Capitalism and bourgeois interests. Further, considering Marxists to be “authoritarian” implies that the only non-authoritarian form of government is a fully horizontal, Anarchist structure. Grouping all governments together as “fascist” is just a smokescreen in front of the quantitative and qualitative differenced between forms of government, which are often extreme, as they have historically been between Marxists and fascists.
Yes, that was my point. Socialism doesn’t become capitalism just because you call them “state capitalism”. Just like koala bears don’t become bears just because you call them that.
When the principle aspects of an economy are controlled by the public, ie large firms and key industries, it is safely considered to have moved beyond Capitalism into Socialism as the Mode of Production. As all transfers from one Mode of Production into the next are both instant and gradual, the Mode of Production overall has changed while still being stamped with remnants of the former that wither over time as the state resolves contradictions in favor of the new Mode of Production.
Labelling all Socialist societies run by Marxists as “State Capitalist” when they have clearly transitioned to a new form of society incompatible with the old order, is a gross mistake in analysis.
No. Socialism as a mode of production is the owning of the means of production by the workers, not the State. For a worker, it doesn’t change anything if their overlords are politicians or industrialists.
Your definition is definitely contrary to Marxism, so if your definition of Socialism is exclusionary of Marxists, I find it a bit strange. “Worker ownership” is not sufficient for Socialism. A sole proprietor is not Socialist, but petite bourgeois. Cooperative ownership is generally considered “socialist,” but not Marxist, as cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations excluding the rest of society from owning the Capital of the cooperative.
Therefore, abolition of private property can only be accomplished truly and fully through total public ownership of Capital. This is the Marxist stance, once the state has managed to fold all of the instruments of production into its hands, it ceases to be recognizable as a state, as class no longer exists. Engels calls this post-state the “Administration of Things.”
I think the issue you have is seeing only Anarchist or Market Socialist formations as Socialist, and not Marxist. This is either from a bias towards the former and against the latter, or a lack of comprehension of the latter. This is why you see public ownership as fundamentally the same as private ownership, and is why your understanding is fundamentally flawed, seeing all hierarchies as “overlords,” be they intra-class hierarchies like workers and managers, or inter-class hierarchies like proletarian and bourgeoisie. It erases the victories achieved by the working class in Socialist states throughout history.
I’m not Marxist, so that’s quite normal. But even in Marxist terms, socialism is a mode of production were the usage value replaced the monetary value. That never happened in so called “communist” countries.
Marxists are absolutely leftists. Fascism is Capitalism when it needs to violently defend itself, meanwhile Marxist movements throughout history have established Socialist systems that dramatically improved the lives of the working class. I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds, Marxist movements and fascist movements are in no way similar and Dr. Michael Parenti does a great job analyzing them historically.
“Tankie” is the modern terminally online equivalent to “commie” or “pinko.” It’s just a pejorative for those who support Marxist movements around the world.
By your definition, though, the belief that the use of force is necessary to progress, ie revolution, Marxists are indeed “tankies.” Marxism is thoroughly revolutionary, a fact made clear repeatedly by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and proven by their successors.
Would you have quibbled less if I had said “authoritarianism” instead of “violence”? I wasn’t trying to be slanted, that was genuinely my impression of what the term meant.
You cannot have Marxist views if you are not in favor of using violence to impose Marxist ideals?
All states are authoritarian, in that all represent primarily one class in society that is dominant, and weild state power to subjugate those who would resist the system. In Capitalism, that class in power is the bourgeoisie, in Socialism, that class is the Proletariat. Revolution is necessary to bring about Socialism, ergo use of authority is also necessary, and core to Marxism, just as it was authoritarian for the French to overthrow the Monarchy, no matter how justified morally said use of authority was.
I recommend reading Friedrich Engels’ On Authority if you want a Marxist perspective from the Luigi of the M&E duo.
It is not a binary distinction. It is also not something all ideologies seek to use as a tool. Rather, some seek to minimize it. I think you are telling me Marxism is an ideology that seeks to fully utilize authoritarianism, almost as though it WERE a binary distinction, and there is no point in going half way.
Overall I take your response in support of authoritarianism to mean you would have found that a less objectionable definition.
Use of authority is driven as reaction, not action, typically. The United States putting down the Confederate rebellion was a good use of authority, but was driven because of the Confederate rebellion. The extent authority is applied depends on the circumstances a country finds itself in, in Socialist countries we often see invasion and active subterfuge from Capitalist countries seeking to undermine the system, and Capitalists are oppressed. This is painted as “authoritarian” by Capitalist dominated media.
You don’t reduce the use of authority by saying “no, don’t do that,” you do so by abolishing the conditions that give rise to its necessity. It is much better for the working class to weild its authority than the Capitalist class.
I don’t support something as vague as “authoritarianism.” I support the working class being in control of the state and using it in its own interests, depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, minimizing excess wherever possible.
I support the proletariat using authoritarian measures, for any time we don’t our enemies laugh at us.
When General Krasnov organized his counter-revolutionary campaign against Leningrad and fell into our hands, we could at least have kept him prisoner, according to the rules of war. Indeed, we ought to have shot him. But we released him on his “word of honor.” And what happened? It soon became clear that such mildness only helped to undermine the strength of the Soviet Government. We made a mistake in displaying such mildness towards enemies of the working class. To have persisted in that mistake would have been a crime against the working class and a betrayal of its interests. That soon became guile apparent. Very soon it became evident that the milder our attitude towards our enemies, the greater their resistance
Removed by mod
When ever you see someone say this you can guarantee they have no problem with actual fascists
I can assure you that I have a problem with all types of fascists and authoritarians no matter the aesthetic.
You want failure and don’t want communism or socialism in other words.
Marxists aren’t fascists, though. Fascism is insepparable from Capitalism and bourgeois interests. Further, considering Marxists to be “authoritarian” implies that the only non-authoritarian form of government is a fully horizontal, Anarchist structure. Grouping all governments together as “fascist” is just a smokescreen in front of the quantitative and qualitative differenced between forms of government, which are often extreme, as they have historically been between Marxists and fascists.
State capitalism is capitalism, even if it’s pretending to be Marxist.
“koala bears are bears, even if they’re pretending they’re marsupials”
It’s more: koala bears are marsupials, even if they’re called bears.
Yes, that was my point. Socialism doesn’t become capitalism just because you call them “state capitalism”. Just like koala bears don’t become bears just because you call them that.
And state capitalism doesn’t become socialism just because you call it that.
When the principle aspects of an economy are controlled by the public, ie large firms and key industries, it is safely considered to have moved beyond Capitalism into Socialism as the Mode of Production. As all transfers from one Mode of Production into the next are both instant and gradual, the Mode of Production overall has changed while still being stamped with remnants of the former that wither over time as the state resolves contradictions in favor of the new Mode of Production.
Labelling all Socialist societies run by Marxists as “State Capitalist” when they have clearly transitioned to a new form of society incompatible with the old order, is a gross mistake in analysis.
No. Socialism as a mode of production is the owning of the means of production by the workers, not the State. For a worker, it doesn’t change anything if their overlords are politicians or industrialists.
Your definition is definitely contrary to Marxism, so if your definition of Socialism is exclusionary of Marxists, I find it a bit strange. “Worker ownership” is not sufficient for Socialism. A sole proprietor is not Socialist, but petite bourgeois. Cooperative ownership is generally considered “socialist,” but not Marxist, as cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations excluding the rest of society from owning the Capital of the cooperative.
Therefore, abolition of private property can only be accomplished truly and fully through total public ownership of Capital. This is the Marxist stance, once the state has managed to fold all of the instruments of production into its hands, it ceases to be recognizable as a state, as class no longer exists. Engels calls this post-state the “Administration of Things.”
I think the issue you have is seeing only Anarchist or Market Socialist formations as Socialist, and not Marxist. This is either from a bias towards the former and against the latter, or a lack of comprehension of the latter. This is why you see public ownership as fundamentally the same as private ownership, and is why your understanding is fundamentally flawed, seeing all hierarchies as “overlords,” be they intra-class hierarchies like workers and managers, or inter-class hierarchies like proletarian and bourgeoisie. It erases the victories achieved by the working class in Socialist states throughout history.
I’m not Marxist, so that’s quite normal. But even in Marxist terms, socialism is a mode of production were the usage value replaced the monetary value. That never happened in so called “communist” countries.
Yeah, but you’ve already admitted that you can’t actually identify fascists
dogs aren’t canines, they’re birds and can fuck off
Marxists are absolutely leftists. Fascism is Capitalism when it needs to violently defend itself, meanwhile Marxist movements throughout history have established Socialist systems that dramatically improved the lives of the working class. I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds, Marxist movements and fascist movements are in no way similar and Dr. Michael Parenti does a great job analyzing them historically.
tankies (ie people who endorse violence as a valid path forward from right here) == marxists?? man, i don’t know jack
The definition of tankie grows more expensive every day! Now it includes everyone except the most radical pacifists.
You heard it here, even social democrats are tankies
“Tankie” is the modern terminally online equivalent to “commie” or “pinko.” It’s just a pejorative for those who support Marxist movements around the world.
By your definition, though, the belief that the use of force is necessary to progress, ie revolution, Marxists are indeed “tankies.” Marxism is thoroughly revolutionary, a fact made clear repeatedly by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and proven by their successors.
deleted by creator
Would you have quibbled less if I had said “authoritarianism” instead of “violence”? I wasn’t trying to be slanted, that was genuinely my impression of what the term meant.
You cannot have Marxist views if you are not in favor of using violence to impose Marxist ideals?
All states are authoritarian, in that all represent primarily one class in society that is dominant, and weild state power to subjugate those who would resist the system. In Capitalism, that class in power is the bourgeoisie, in Socialism, that class is the Proletariat. Revolution is necessary to bring about Socialism, ergo use of authority is also necessary, and core to Marxism, just as it was authoritarian for the French to overthrow the Monarchy, no matter how justified morally said use of authority was.
I recommend reading Friedrich Engels’ On Authority if you want a Marxist perspective from the Luigi of the M&E duo.
It is not a binary distinction. It is also not something all ideologies seek to use as a tool. Rather, some seek to minimize it. I think you are telling me Marxism is an ideology that seeks to fully utilize authoritarianism, almost as though it WERE a binary distinction, and there is no point in going half way.
Overall I take your response in support of authoritarianism to mean you would have found that a less objectionable definition.
Use of authority is driven as reaction, not action, typically. The United States putting down the Confederate rebellion was a good use of authority, but was driven because of the Confederate rebellion. The extent authority is applied depends on the circumstances a country finds itself in, in Socialist countries we often see invasion and active subterfuge from Capitalist countries seeking to undermine the system, and Capitalists are oppressed. This is painted as “authoritarian” by Capitalist dominated media.
You don’t reduce the use of authority by saying “no, don’t do that,” you do so by abolishing the conditions that give rise to its necessity. It is much better for the working class to weild its authority than the Capitalist class.
I don’t support something as vague as “authoritarianism.” I support the working class being in control of the state and using it in its own interests, depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, minimizing excess wherever possible.
I support the proletariat using authoritarian measures, for any time we don’t our enemies laugh at us.
—Someone, idk
You know what the single most powerful force in human history is?
Organization. Which is always hierarchal. It doesn’t have to mean socially, but definitely organizationally.
If anarchism didn’t exist, the CIA would have had to create it.
You know what the most common attribute of Anarchist revolutions is? They all failed. Every single one of them. That is what you want. Failure.
This is a subjective statement.
This is an untrue statement.
Okay CIA.
Save this one until you are crowing at me from the parapets of your Utopia. Oh wait, it has to be global, so I guess I’m the one inside the walls.
Their ideology has actually improved human well being. Yours has only created martyrs.