Seize the Means of Production
Seize the Means of Production
Of what use, then, are the American Communists?
They serve one function extremely useful to you and to the country, so useful that, if there were no Communists, we would almost be forced to create some. They are a reliable litmus paper for detecting real sources of danger to the Republic.
Communism is so repugnant to almost all Americans, when they are getting along even tolerably well, that one may predict with certainty that any social field or group in which the Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines, any such spot is in such bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills that the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble.
Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops.
—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
An example of this was the communist were heavily involved in organizing share croppers in the Jim crow south. This caused a lot of red baiting during the civil rights movement, with MLK often being labeled a communist ( he was definitely more left then he is often portrayed, radical by today's standards, but not a commie).
Marxican stand-off
Potentially controversial opinion: Just like capitalism, communism also needs to be regulated so as to not get exploited by a powerful few.
Any political system requires vigilant population, which needs education, which means we're fucked no matter the system we're living under because most people rather tune out 'the noise' and live their lives being blissfully ignorant.
It's hardly controversial. Marx envisioned that a revolution would happen when the working class (the majority of any society) becomes class conscious and usher in socialism. That in essence would be a vigilant population.
The issue with popular presentation of Marxism is that what is presented is actually Leninism. Lenin is the one who thought proletariats can't become class conscious (or vigilant) on their own and instead require a vanguard party of revolutionaries to lead the proletariat into communism. How that worked out is evident from the USSR.
Ding ding ding! Communists like to blame capitalism for everything (and vice versa), but anybody not blinded by ideology can understand that the problem is the human element. People like to imagine perfect systems, but those cannot exist with flawed creatures within them, especially when the flawed creatures operate the system. All of those systems require constant vigilance.
the problem is the human element
I absolutely agree. The difference is that the incentives of capitalism virtually guarantee exploitation and inequality. It's a system that encourages the concentration of wealth and power. Antisocial and anticompetitive tactics maximize returns and ensure that bad actors willing to put profit above anything else benefit the most and rise to the top as leaders and bosses. It relies on competition and, assumes "market forces" will self correct an imbalanced system... eventually.
Unless you want a brutal, unstable system where power and wealth accumulate and get concentrated until a violent shift (hopefully) collapses that power and eventually market forces pick a new "winner" you need regulation to keep the profit motive in check and competition fair. Still, the rules of the system encourage regulatory capture as competitive actors try to gain advantage however they can, regardless of the impact on the general population.
Socialism, honestly, has become a weird catch-all term for critiques of capitalism looking to align the goals of society toward democracy and equality. There is a ton of theory and different methods of achieving or implementing such a society but that's kind of where I see things.
Within that eventual ideal society there is still the ability for people to exploit each other for power. The human element doesn't disappear. The idea is that it is harder when the goal of the system is to ensure everyone has what they need and everyone gets a say in how things are done. The system needs to be built and tweaked with checks and balances to ensure that power doesn't get concentrated without the ability for the greater population to redistribute that power.
Basically, unless you are a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism (no government involvement) then you recognize the danger posed by unfettered capitalism. Socialism attempts to change the incentives so that society can be designed, fundamentally, to minimize the danger posed by that human element. It recognizes that a democratic and fair capitalist society is an oxymoron.
I have a challenge for you. Again, assuming you are not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, think about the ways that our capitalist society could be improved by new regulation or the removal or adjusting of existing bad regulation (Edit: regulation is meant to include laws, taxes, etc). How many of those regulations don't exist - were proposed and shot down - because those empowered by capitalism (Edit: **who have achieved disproportionate wealth and power via capitalism and wish to maintain their status) have fought tooth and tail to prevent them? How many of those bad, restrictive, existing regulations were implemented, or twisted, by those empowered by capitalism?
Edit: Look around the world at the questionable actions performed by the United States and ask why did the US do that? What was their incentive? More often than not, it involves preserving and furthering the power of those who already hold a disproportionate amount of power in that capitalist society.
This is the reason I'm a Mutualist/Market-Socialist.
I think that its a system that metaphorically is trained in Aikido against some of human's worst elements and maximizes the positive of human being's behavior.
Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Of course there need to be structures in place to ensure it stays that way, because having a powerful few would have reintroduced classes. Thats why you need stable, democratic governance, for example federated councils or something similar.
most people rather tune out 'the noise' and live their lives being blissfully ignorant
I'd argue that's not an intrinsic feature of humans, but the result of capitalist alienation. On the one hand, the individual has very little chance to participate in the decision making process, and people are overworked so they barely have the energy or time to do so, even if they wanted to
"Source, "Wikipedia": A power vacuum is a very powerful vacuum."
Edit: fuck I didn't mean to make this comment
I am pretty sure that this honest leftist self-criticism thing is against online decency rules and I demand to see the manager.
Ok, so Two-Tone-Beard-Man is Marx, Slightly-Darker-Beard-Man is Engels, but who are Long-Beard-Man and Auntie-Glasses-Lady? I ask because Long-Beard-Man appears to be the winner of the heated exchange at the end...
Brilliant.
" ALEXA, define power vacuum."
Capitalism and socialism are a pendulum, acting as a response to each other and the exploitation of the flaws in the system. The real enemy is authoritarianism which defends whichever system is in power at the time.