You're viewing a single thread.
Communism will never exist ,it's utopia ,it becoming authoritarianism very quickly.We need other real alternatives to what we have now
Often repeated, but never much nuance or substance.
Marxism is anti-utopian, it's based on analyzing how societies evolve over time. What is deemed "authoritarianism" is the need for the proletariat to exert its control over the bourgeoisie, rather than the reverse, yet bourgeois rule is more authoritarian.
I recommend you don't get your information about communism solely from devout anti-communists
I lived in post sovier counties with USSR time ages,so I know pretty well what it was actually.It's awful and never should happen again,but I didn't say that I like capitalism too they both authoritarianism in extreme limits
Sounds like you're the one who expects utopia
The majority of people who lived in the Soviet Union want it back. Your complaints about socialism don't make any sense, either.
This echoes my concerns every time someone (especially under the age of about 40, especially American) praises "communism" (as if it were one thing) with some kind of absolute adoration.
In this case, OP: how did that justice work for the political dissidents sent to gulags?
The vast majority of people sent to prison by the soviets were criminals, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. The political prisoners were largely members of the White Army, fascists, monarchists, or were active terrorists against society. For a country that went through a revolution, resistance from the older owning classes is expected, other revolutions were similar in use of force against the monarchy and other ruling classes.
system of government and system of economy are two different things though. They influence each other, but communism isn't and wasn't causing authoritarianism. You can get authoritarianism in every type of economy, as well as you can have communism combined with every type of government.
This isn't quite correct. Governance and economy are too interlinked to be considered distinct, systems aren't recipes picked out on a page but a material, physical thing. Further, "authoritarianism" isn't really a thing in and of itself, it just describes the phenomenon where one class oppresses others. In Socialism, the proletariat oppresses the bourgeousie, in Capitalism the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat.
How is the proletariat oppressing a non existent class? Under socialism, wouldn't everyone be considered proletariat?
Good questions!
-
Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Public ownership becomes the principle aspect of the economy, not private. However, classes remain, the commodity form remains in earlier phases of socialism, and so does the state.
-
In communism, after all classes are abolished, there won't be a proletariat either. Proletarians are people that sell their labor-power as their sole commodity, in communism wage-labor as the capitalist conception no longer exists. Without a bourgeoisie, there can be no proletariat.
I guess I understand that, but separately I take issue with the use of the word oppression? The bourgeoisie cannot be oppressed, really. If they were ever in a position to be oppressed, they would no longer be considered bourgeoisie. No? But yeah the rest of what you're saying makes sense.
Oppression by the state is what I mean. The bourgeoisie are specifically that class that earns its income through the M-C-M' circuit of capitalist production. This class will still exist in socialism, it existed in limited factors in the Soviet Union, exists in the modern PRC, Cuba, etc. However, the existence of private property does not mean the bourgeoisie has control of the state. What matters is which class controls the principle aspects of the economy, the large firms and key industries. In the PRC, for example, those are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, even if there exists a bourgeoisie, and as a consequence the bourgeoisie is subordinate to the state and not above it.
But, and maybe this is a semantics argument then, I don't think we are in agreement by what oppression means. I'm just using the google definition. Are you using a different definition that makes more sense in the context of theory/academic circles? I am a layman, after all
I'm using it in the same way you likely are, I just think we have a different conception of how the state behaves. Essentially, depending on which aspect of the economy is principle, as well as who is in charge of the state, will determine which class is going to be represented by the state in disputes among classes.
In an economy dominated by private property and a bourgeois state, there is no real democracy for the proletariat. The state is fully under the control of the bourgeoisie.
In an economy dominated by public property and a proletarian state, the proletariat is in charge of where the economy is headed. The proletariat can sieze bourgeois property if it so chooses, the state can support labor unions, etc.
This is because whoever controls the large firms and key industries controls the economy in total, as all depending factors rely on them. As small and medium firms grow, the proletariat can fold them into the public sector, as market mechanics cease to be as effective and central planning becomes far more efficient.
Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.
"prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)
"the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)
"mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)
"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)
Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.
"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)
I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?
I don't think it's "cruel" or "unjust," all it means is that freedom for the bourgeousie will be curtailed, speech will be restricted, and influence will be limited, rather than the proletariat which is oppressed by capitalist states. It's a flipping of the dictatorship of the bourgeousie to the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie the proletariat will have the political power, and the bourgeoisie will have little to none.
I'm a communist, for clarity, I don't say this as a knock on socialism and communism. I think you're putting more of a moral spin on it than a materialist spin.
-