Communism is socialism without the socially liberal aspects… go ahead and vote for your strongdaddy because he’ll subsidize your house, but watch out when you try to complain that the river was polluted by the state electrical company.
Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution between capitalism and communism, characterized by the working class as dominant and social ownership as rising and dominant. Communism is a fully collectivized society devoid of classes. “Social liberalism” has nothing at all to do with distinguishing the two, in fact communism will be more socially progressive than socialism as social struggles continue into socialism.
you’re right, should have pressed the big “communism now” button instead of dealing with complex processes, such as the development of the productive forces, silly commies
No? The transitional argument is that communism requires both highly developed productive forces, and collectivization of all of these highly developed productive forces. The socialist transitional period requires intense development of underdeveloped production, as well as building the necessary administration for planned economy, both of which take time.
The idea of “bigdaddy” is nonsense, and isn’t found in either Marxism-Leninism in theory or in practice. There has not been a ceding of control to socialist leadership, but instead an expansion of democratization to the working classes, historically. The idea that MLs want a big strongman to push a button and delete all administration is a farce of both socialist construction and what communism looks like, as communism retains administration.
Utopia is also not promised, Marxists rail against utopianism.
Please be serious here, throughout your comments here you’ve done nothing but demonstrate a lack of care for the subject matter and wax poetic about lottery-voting while ignoring the crux of the argument.
I simply argue that a single party with unilateral control creates a totalitarian dictatorial state. and totalitarian states lead to accelerated suffering.
I also argue this is true for two party systems. and proposes a system based on demographic representation with a safe guard to remove bad actors from political power.
under my proposal, the state could choose to take control over the means of production if enough people chose. I welcome new forms of political ideas, not single minded adherence to party dogma.
and ‘waxing poetic’ would require me to be much less specific than I have been.
you are waxing poetic with these strange, shifting and amorphous ideas of “class”, and “transitional periods” while providing no concrete roadmap for how unilateral single party control of a state elevates the workers to control over the means of production.
in reality it simply shifts control over the means of production to cronyism.
single-party rule creates a party-class and a working class, and the party-class is in no way beholden to the working class.
Nobody is arguing for a party to have unilateral and unaccountable power. You are deeply confusing how unitary socialist democracy works by alienating the party from the rest of the people, and drawing a hard line between democratic participation in society and the party itself.
Class is not shifting or amorphous. Class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production.
Capitalists own the means of production individually.
Workers sell their labor power.
In socialism, workers jointly own the means of production.
You are confusing the type of labor with class itself, which makes it amorphous.
Transition is also not shifting or amorphous. Between capitalism, where there is privatized means of production, and communism, where all production is planned and socially owned, is a period where the means of production need to be advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.
You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.
“advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.”
-what qualifies as advanced enough? that is amorphous.
“You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.”
-no the party is separating the party from the people by removing any means of peaceful transition of power except through mandatory, open poll, party controlled elections of exclusively party members and through strict control of party membership.
Regarding how advanced production needs to be for social planning, it must not be an impedement for production. Essentially, by the point that decentralized production has transitioned to monopoly, markets have played their role. That’s why in a socialist country like China, the commanding heights are socially owned, while for developing industries these are privately owned to a large degree. At the monopoly level, privatization impedes progress.
As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.
“As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.”
then please enlighten me how communist elections should work, because in China and the Soviet union candidates must be approved by the communist party.
“Please be serious.” you do not need to deride me just because we disagree. it shows a lack of maturity.
The transitional argument is that communism requires both highly developed productive forces, and collectivization of all of these highly developed productive forces. The socialist transitional period requires intense development of underdeveloped production, as well as building the necessary administration for planned economy, both of which take time.
The idea of “bigdaddy” is nonsense, and isn’t found in either Marxism-Leninism in theory or in practice. There has not been a ceding of control to socialist leadership, but instead an expansion of democratization to the working classes, historically. The idea that MLs want a big strongman to push a button and delete all administration is a farce of both socialist construction and what communism looks like, as communism retains administration.
Communism is socialism without the socially liberal aspects… go ahead and vote for your strongdaddy because he’ll subsidize your house, but watch out when you try to complain that the river was polluted by the state electrical company.
Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution between capitalism and communism, characterized by the working class as dominant and social ownership as rising and dominant. Communism is a fully collectivized society devoid of classes. “Social liberalism” has nothing at all to do with distinguishing the two, in fact communism will be more socially progressive than socialism as social struggles continue into socialism.
The ‘transitional’ argument is basically ‘bigdaddy promises he’ll make a utopia if we grant him totalitarian control’
you’re right, should have pressed the big “communism now” button instead of dealing with complex processes, such as the development of the productive forces, silly commies
No? The transitional argument is that communism requires both highly developed productive forces, and collectivization of all of these highly developed productive forces. The socialist transitional period requires intense development of underdeveloped production, as well as building the necessary administration for planned economy, both of which take time.
The idea of “bigdaddy” is nonsense, and isn’t found in either Marxism-Leninism in theory or in practice. There has not been a ceding of control to socialist leadership, but instead an expansion of democratization to the working classes, historically. The idea that MLs want a big strongman to push a button and delete all administration is a farce of both socialist construction and what communism looks like, as communism retains administration.
Utopia is also not promised, Marxists rail against utopianism.
Please be serious here, throughout your comments here you’ve done nothing but demonstrate a lack of care for the subject matter and wax poetic about lottery-voting while ignoring the crux of the argument.
I simply argue that a single party with unilateral control creates a totalitarian dictatorial state. and totalitarian states lead to accelerated suffering.
I also argue this is true for two party systems. and proposes a system based on demographic representation with a safe guard to remove bad actors from political power. under my proposal, the state could choose to take control over the means of production if enough people chose. I welcome new forms of political ideas, not single minded adherence to party dogma.
and ‘waxing poetic’ would require me to be much less specific than I have been.
you are waxing poetic with these strange, shifting and amorphous ideas of “class”, and “transitional periods” while providing no concrete roadmap for how unilateral single party control of a state elevates the workers to control over the means of production.
in reality it simply shifts control over the means of production to cronyism. single-party rule creates a party-class and a working class, and the party-class is in no way beholden to the working class.
Nobody is arguing for a party to have unilateral and unaccountable power. You are deeply confusing how unitary socialist democracy works by alienating the party from the rest of the people, and drawing a hard line between democratic participation in society and the party itself.
Class is not shifting or amorphous. Class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production.
Capitalists own the means of production individually.
Workers sell their labor power.
In socialism, workers jointly own the means of production.
You are confusing the type of labor with class itself, which makes it amorphous.
Transition is also not shifting or amorphous. Between capitalism, where there is privatized means of production, and communism, where all production is planned and socially owned, is a period where the means of production need to be advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.
You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.
“advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.” -what qualifies as advanced enough? that is amorphous. “You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.” -no the party is separating the party from the people by removing any means of peaceful transition of power except through mandatory, open poll, party controlled elections of exclusively party members and through strict control of party membership.
Regarding how advanced production needs to be for social planning, it must not be an impedement for production. Essentially, by the point that decentralized production has transitioned to monopoly, markets have played their role. That’s why in a socialist country like China, the commanding heights are socially owned, while for developing industries these are privately owned to a large degree. At the monopoly level, privatization impedes progress.
As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.
Please be serious.
“As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.”
“Please be serious.” you do not need to deride me just because we disagree. it shows a lack of maturity.
This
The transitional argument is that communism requires both highly developed productive forces, and collectivization of all of these highly developed productive forces. The socialist transitional period requires intense development of underdeveloped production, as well as building the necessary administration for planned economy, both of which take time.
The idea of “bigdaddy” is nonsense, and isn’t found in either Marxism-Leninism in theory or in practice. There has not been a ceding of control to socialist leadership, but instead an expansion of democratization to the working classes, historically. The idea that MLs want a big strongman to push a button and delete all administration is a farce of both socialist construction and what communism looks like, as communism retains administration.
They already do that under capitalism dumbass
And no, socialism isn’t just “libbed up commuism”. In both cases the workers own the state. Everything else is a fucking larp