The problem is that in order to unite the left it is necessary to agree to the ideological level, very difficult, to unite the right it needs just a briefcase of money.
Money's got nothing on hate. Nothing unites the Right more than hate, every fascist ideology centres around hate for a certain group. Be it Jews, Palestinians, Chinese, or Hispanics.
I wish. You're giving right-wingers way too much credit. Most of those craven idiots do it for free for the opportunity to lose themselves in a gaggle of other morons. They are vulnerable in a way that is easy to exploit for people who know how to do it.
can we do it too?
There's a huge difference between capitalism and oligarchy. What we have is oligarchy. All the worst parts of capitalism. 19th century robber-baron "capitalism."
"It wasn't real
communismcapitalism"The "oligarchy" of today is not distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism at a later stage in its life.
Capitalism today looks nothing like capitalism in the 1950s. Back then, a family could easily survive on the income of one person. With money left over to pay for college education, a car and a house.
That is not the situation today, where most Americans have NO retirement savings. Unless you're redefining what capitalism IS, then that's a problem caused by the people in charge (oligarchs).
I swear bro the next capitalism actually works, bro trust me, bro without capitalism you wouldn't have iphones bro.
bro i promise, with social democracy capitalism is equalitarian. yes bro i promise. bro, no more oppression! please don’t look at the global south
Global South wouldn't be a fair example since you'd have to factor in historical (and current) exploitation by Western nations. This tends to bolster corruption by having leaders sell out their population to align with Western prerogatives, enriching themselves in the process.
The social democracies in these nations is generally an attempt to protect the populace from Western capitalism moreso than domestic capitalism.
One example would be when the US overthrew the Shah in Iran back in the 50s because they socialized ownership of their oil reserves (previously owned through exploitation by a Western coporation). They staged a coup d'etat to install a pro Western leader so that the Western exploitation could continue. This inevitably led to the Iranian revolution, playing a significant role in Iran's current state as a theocracy.
The Global South, particularly South America, has countless of examples of this. The term banana republic is used to describe this very situation.
This is by no means an indictment on Western culture, just that the global rich will inevitably be in a position to manipulate the global not-so-rich for their own gain. Western nations are the global bourgeoisie.
Nordic nations are a better example of social democracies as they are not subject to the same type of meddling.
bro capitalism is the best we've got, trust me bro despite its flaws it's the only one that works bro, bro just accept this as truth, bro don't question it bro.
I’ve never come across anyone who calls themselves a “Stalinist.” Maybe that’s what some horseshoe theorists call Marxist-Leninists.
I must confess to have stealing this meme from elsewhere and didn't even notice that lol
What would it even mean?
Kinda like Marxism-Leninism, but in a one-man cult-of-personality police state and if you as much as look funny at the leader, you get disappeared/shot?
In other words, what's happening to the USA minus the Marxism-Leninism?
Which movie is this from?
I'm pretty sure it's Shaun of the Dead.
Shaun of the Dead
Yet you participate in a society, curious, etc etc
Stalinists, Maoists and Socialists (at least the reformist ones) are pro-capital, just under a different form. They love their commodity production and wage labor...
Marxism-Leninism (which I presume you mean by the term "Stalinist") is more classically Marxist than those who think they can abolish commodity production over night. I elaborate more on that in this comment.
While I do like your writing style and think you're quite talented at it, that's just a bunch of ML revisionism/State capitalist (Dengist) apologetics that misrepresents Marx.
Not gonna thoroughly debunk it cause it's a wall of text, but ownership =/= mode of production. Marx never said that public ownership alone makes something socialist, what matters is how things are produced: Is it for exchange or use? Is labor still waged? Does surplus value still exist and get extracted? If yes - that's still capitalism therefore not Marxist.
You also claim that "Marx didn't think you could abolish private property by making it illegal" which is true cause else it would be idealism, but then you use this to spin it into "that's why we need to let firms develop then make them public" while in reality what Marx meant is that we should abolish capital relations, not co-exist with capital and preserve businesses until they're "ready".
You're also trying to spin the "by degrees" quote from the manifesto to act as if Marx argued for gradual market-led process of evolution from Capitalism to Socialism (or in other words, keeping Capitalism and Markets for decades after the revolution) and not a revolutionary process of abolition of Capital entirely.
That isn't Marxism, but maybe I'm just too ideologically pure and idealistic. Still, I think being more honest that it's not actually "classical Marxism" wouldn't hurt.
Serious question: has communism ever been proved to work at scale? (not communist regimes, the communist ideology)
No, it gets destroyed by a CIA-funded coup every time. (Read Jakarta Method)
But look at Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Kerala, China, Burkino Faso for modern attempts at Socialism/Communism
Yes, The PRC, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and former USSR all are examples of Communist parties over Socialist systems. Communism, the post-Socialist, global fully publicly owned economy hasn't been achieved yet, but thus far Communists have been able to successfully build Socialism, its necessary prerequisite.
No system has ever worked at scale. Capitalism is literally destroying the planet we live on, Feudalism wasn't any better, and no other system was ever applied at such a scale.
Maybe the scale is the problem, and the Anarchists were right all along.Anarchists would still have to deal with scale in terms of trade, production and centralization - after all, not every commune would be able to produce penicillin, insulin, chips, phones, steel, etc as a hobby. In other words, they would still have to replace capitalist system to a decent enough extent to be able to meet all their needs.
Capitalism is a global system, it is based on exchange value and things being produced and sold for a profit, not for use (which is known as commodity production), and if you want to trade internationally, you have to follow this capitalist mode of production. Communism, on the other hand, aims to abolish the production of commodities (money included) and instead produce goods for use. Notice how these two systems differ so much, international trade between actual communist and capitalist countries becomes impossible given how differently they value things.
Now consider how today's capitalist nations are so dependent on trade, and it's because trade allows nations to prosper, to grow, to have increased standards of living and gives the nations access to materials they otherwise couldn't have produced within their local borders. If a nation goes full isolationist, it loses access to all of that and the nation becomes crippled.
So there's three ways for communist countries to go about the global capitalist system:
-
Go full isolationist, which would cripple a country substantially.
-
Participate in the capitalist market, meaning the country would be forced to produce commodities and participate in capital exchange which would make them, in one definition or another, capitalist. This also heavily risks the country to fall into full capitalism with time (as seen historically).
-
Support worker movements internationally en masse and hope they succeed with achieving their revolutions. If they succeed, only then can exchange value be safely abolished, goods be produced for use instead of profit, and international socialist/communist trade can actually happen with people having their needs met.
It's clear that international communist revolution is pretty much the only viable way forward, and the only opportunity to do so failed (with Spartacist uprising, Hungrarian Soviet Republic, etc being crushed, leaving USSR standing pretty much alone).
So to answer your question with all this nonsensical wall of text in mind, no. Actual communist/socialist mode of production has never existed (therefore whether communist ideology works hasn't been proven), as any experiments so far had essentially been capitalist.
This isn't quite accurate. If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road. Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.
Communism must be global, but we can't make a fully publicly owned economy simply by declaring private property illegal, the USSR didn't even manage to do that.
this.
adendum: in some "primitive" societies, there was no private property of the means of production. marx and engels studied that extensively.
-
Not capitalism ≠ communism (or communist ideology). Imagine an interest-free economic system. This could also work completely without communist ideology, but would get rid of the problematic core principle in capitalism that money attracts more money (which for instance might have stopped the Swasticar CEO from even becoming so powerful). This would also improve the value of work compared to just owning money. But maybe I am just delusional and instead the anarchists are indeed right. Dunno.
